10th Annual
D
Demographia
hiInternational Housing
Affordability
Survey: 2014
Ratings for Metropolitan Markets
Australia  Canada  Hong Kong  Ireland
Japan  New Zealand  Singapore
United Kingdom  United States
With an Introduction by

Alain Bertaud, Urbanist
Stern School of Business, New York University
Former Principal Planner-The World Bank
Data for 3rd Quarter 2013

10th Annual Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey
Introduction

URBAN PLANNING AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
By Alain Bertaud, Urbanist,
Senior Research Scholar, Stern School of Business, New York University
Former Principal Planner - The World Bank
http://alainbertaud.com/

T

his year, Demographia is publishing its 10th Annual International Housing Affordability Survey. It
ranks 360 metropolitan markets in nine countries.
Are planners in the worst performing cities paying any attention?
And are they drawing any conclusions on how to improve thesituation? Or do local governments conclude that the best way toincrease the supply of affordable housing is to impose new
regulations that will mandate developers to build housing units atprices, standards, and in locations selected by the government?
The last approach, under the name of inclusionary zoning is
unfortunately the most common response, as recently seen, forinstance, in New York and Mexico City.
Urban planners have been inventing all sorts of abstractly worded
objectives to justify their plans for our future cities – smart growth,livability, sustainability, are among the most recent fads.
There is nothing wrong, of course, for a city to try to be smart,
liveable, or sustainable.

But for some reasons these vague and benign sounding objectives
usually become a proxy for imposing planning regulations that severely limit the supply of buildable land andthe number of housing units built, resulting in ever higher housing prices. In the name of smart growth orsustainability, planners decide that densities should be lower in some places and higher in others. Population
densities are not a design parameter whose value depends on the whim of planners but are consumption
indicators which are set by markets.
Even the Communist Party of China recently declared that resource allocation is best achieved throughmarkets; why can’t urban planners in so-called market economies reach the same conclusions and let markets
decide how much land and floor space households and firms will consume in different locations?

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)It is time for planners to abandon abstract objectives and to focus their efforts on two measurable outcomesthat have always mattered since the growth of large cities during the 19th century’s industrial revolution:
workers’ spatial mobility and housing affordability.
As a city develops, nothing is more important than maintaining mobility and housing affordability.
Mobility takes two forms: first, the ability to travel in less than an hour from one part of a city to another; andsecond, the ability to trade dwellings easily with low transactions costs.
Housing mobility allows households to move to the location that best maximize their welfare. Affordability
is the ability for any urban household to be able to rent a dwelling for less than a 25% of its monthly income,or to buy one for less than about three time its yearly income.
The mobility and affordability objectives are tightly related. A residential location that only allows access to
only a small segment of the job market in less than an hour commuting time has not much value tohouseholds, even if it is theoretically affordable.
For instance, the government of South Africa has been building several million units of heavily subsidized“affordable” housing in areas that require long and expensive commute – transport costs representing insome cases more than 50% of a worker salary. In this case, affordability without mobility is only a poverty
trap. Affordability and spatial mobility are therefore inseparable objectives.
Urban planners should routinely monitor land and housing prices and rents by location in the metropolitan
area in which they work. Monitoring the market supply side should be one of their main tasks. They should
also monitor the changes in households’ income distribution, the demand side. That way, they may learn howmarkets work.
How many urban planning departments publish annually variations in land and housing prices? If they did,they would be obliged to provide their own diagnostic to explain real estate price variations and propose
remedial action when housing affordability decrease in an unacceptable manner.
Land use regulations and the availability of trunk infrastructure heavily constrain the supply of developableland. Planners, therefore, have a key role to play in ensuring an elastic supply of land by auditing land use
regulations and by planning new trunk infrastructure that would allow the development of new areas or fastertravel time to already built-up areas.
A periodic regulatory audit should weed out obsolete regulations to allow an elastic land supply and toincrease households’ ability to consume the amount of land and floor space that would maximize theirwelfare in the location of their choice. Part of the audit should concern the regulations, taxes, andadministrative practices that unnecessarily increase transaction costs when building new housing units or
selling or buying existing ones.
The twin objectives of maintaining mobility and housing affordability should drive the design, financing, andconstruction of trunk infrastructure.
Because the building of trunk infrastructure often requires the use of eminent domain, governments have amonopoly on its design and construction. Here is a new simple job description for urban planners: plan thedevelopment of trunk infrastructure to maintain a steady supply of developable land for future development,
but leave land and floor consumption per dwelling to the market.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

There is no silver bullet to increase the supply of affordable housing. But if planners abandoned abstracts
and unmeasurable objectives like smart growth, liveability and sustainability to focus on what really matters –mobility and affordability – we could see a rapidly improving situation in many cities. I am not implying thatplanners should not be concerned with urban environmental issues. To the contrary, those issues are
extremely important, but they should be considered a constraint to be solved not an end in itself.
Urban development should remain the main objective of urban planning.
Until now, Demographia has focused its annual affordability survey on a limited number of OECD countries.
This is understandable as the data collection task is difficult enough in advanced economies. In many cities,
the scarcity of credible data on affordability further demonstrates how little interest the planning profession
has in the issue.
However, the housing affordability problem is even worse in emerging economies than the ones in theOECD cities covered by the Demographia survey. In emerging economies, rapidly increasing households
income combined with severe constraints on the supply of developable land are putting an enormouspressure on housing prices.
The constraints on land supply are usually due to obsolete regulations, overzealous and predatory
bureaucracies - and in deficiencies in timely trunk infrastructure investments.
In Mumbai, for instance, in spite of a spectacular increase in real households’ income through the last twenty
years, the number of people living in slums has increased and includes now more than half of the population.
Paradoxically, a large part of the Mumbai population that has recently reached middle class status is now
1living in slums!
In the case of Mumbai, the severe housing deficiencies are not due to poverty, but to political andbureaucratic inertia.
It is hoped that the clear quantitative approach demonstrated by the Demographia survey would incite local
think tanks in India, Brazil and China to develop the data base and the methodology to analyse theaffordability problem and find a market solution to solve it.
Alain Bertaud
Urbanist & Senior Research Scholar
Stern School of Business
New York University
Former Principal Urban Planner – World Bank
http://alainbertaud.com/

Biographical information follows....
1

Patricia Clarke Annez, Alain Bertaud, Bimal Patel and V. K. Phatak, Working with the market: a new approach to reducing
urban slums in India, The World Bank Elibrary, November 2010. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-94505475

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)About Alain Bertaud …
Alain Bertaud is a senior research scholar at the NYU Stern Urbanization Project. At the moment, he iswriting a book about urban planning that is tentatively titled Order Without Design. Bertaud previously held theposition of principal urban planner at the World Bank. After retiring from the Bank in 1999, he worked as anindependent consultant.
Prior to joining the World Bank he worked as a resident urban planner in a number of cities around theworld: Bangkok, San Salvador (El Salvador), Port au Prince (Haiti), Sana’a (Yemen), New York, Paris,
Tlemcen (Algeria), and Chandigarh (India).
Bertaud’s research, conducted in collaboration with his wife Marie-Agnès, aims to bridge the gap between
operational urban planning and urban economics. Their work focuses primarily on the interaction between
urban forms, real estate markets and regulations.
Bertaud earned the Architecte DPLG diploma from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Parisin 1967.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Highlights from Previous Introductions to the
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey

Hon. Bill English,
Deputy Prime
Minister, New
Zealand(#9: 2013)

Housing affordability is complex in
the detail – governments intervenein many ways – but is conceptuallysimple. It costs too much and takes
too long to build a house in New
Zealand. Land has been madeartificially scarce by regulation that
locks up land for development.
This regulation has made land
supply unresponsive to demand.
Although usually thought of as“progressive” in the English
speaking world, the addiction to“smart growth” can more readily
be seen as socially “regressive”. In
contrast to the traditional policies
of left of center governments that
promoted the expansion ofownership and access to thesuburban “dream” for the middle
class, today regressive“progressives” actually advocate
the closing off of such options forpotential homeowners.

Joel Kotkin,
Chapman
University(#7: 2011)

Dr. Shlomo Angel,
New York
University(#5: 2009)

For cities to expand outward attheir current pace ─ toaccommodate their growing
populations or the increased
demand for space resulting fromhigher incomes ─ the supply ofland must not be artificiallyconstrained.
The more stringent the restrictions,the less is the housing market able
to respond to increased demand,and the more likely house prices
are to increase. And whenresidential land is very difficult tocome by, housing becomes
unaffordable.

2007: 3rd Edition#9: 2012: Robert
Bruegmann, PhD,
University of
Illinois, Chicago(#8: 2012)

Dr. Tony Recsei,
Save Our Suburbs,
Sydney(#6: 2010)

I think it is fair to say that a
growing number of people whohave looked at the figures havetended to agree that a good manywell-meaning policies involving
housing may be pushing up prices
to such an extent that the negativeside-effects are more harmful thanthe problems the policies wereintended to correct.
During the 18th century, especiallyafter the industrial revolution, rural
dwellers desperate to make a living
streamed into the cities, converting
many areas into overcrowded
slums. However, as the new
economic order began to generate
wealth, standards of living
improved, allowing an increase inpersonal living space.
Unless we are vigilant, high-density
zealots will do their best to reverse
centuries of gains and drive us
back towards a Dickensian gloom.
...the affordability of housing isoverwhelmingly a function of just
one thing, the extent to whichgovernments place artificial
restrictions on the supply of
residential land.

Dr. Donald Brash,
Former Governor,
Reserve Bank of
New Zealand(#4: 2008)

2006: 2nd Edition

Australia is perhaps the least
densely populated majorcountry in the world, but state
governments there havecontrived to drive land prices inmajor urban areas to very
high levels, with the result that inthat country housing inmajor state capitals has become
severely unaffordable...

2005: 1st Edition

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)From the Authors
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
We are pleased to present this 10th
Annual Demographia Housing
Affordability Survey. Over the last
decade, the Demographia Surveys havebrought attention to the public
policy driven deterioration of
housing affordability, and thus the cost of living, topublic attention around the world. Indeed, there is no
more compelling domestic public purpose than tomaintain and improve the standard of living andminimize poverty.

The purpose of the Demographia Surveys
is to alert the public and policy-makers
if housing exceeds 3.0 times annual
household incomes, that there is
institutional failure at the local level.
The political and regulatory
impediments with respect to land supply andinfrastructure provision must be dealt with.

The proliferation of large cities is a less than twocentury old phenomenon. The largest cities haveemerged only over the past century. The rise of cities,
along with technologies and ubiquitous mobility havetransformed a world of poverty into a one with better
lives for nearly all, and where nearly all aspire to ahigher standard of living. This requires an affordable
cost of living, which requires housing affordability.

“Once policymakers and civil society understand andaccept the demographic and social composition ofurban growth, some basic approaches and initiatives
suggest themselves.”

Yet, the dominant strain of planning, urban
containment, increases the cost of living. This would
be fine in a world of Maslow's "self-actualizers," forwhom "making ends meet" is at most a memory.
Unacceptably, it condemns a much larger number tolower standards of living, and relegates more topoverty. The first principle of livability is affordability.
There is an urgent need to facilitate the competitive
land markets on which housing affordability depends.
The Demographia Surveys seek to fill the void createdby the general failure of governments to monitor
housing affordability, which is a prerequisite to thesteps necessary to maintain and restore it.

Indeed – the United Nations within its 2007 World
Population Report is very forthright when it states –“These could have a huge impact on the fate of poor
people and the viability of the cities themselves. ““Throughout the report, the message is clear. Urban
and national governments, together with civil society
and supported by international organizations, cantake steps that make a huge difference for the social,economic and environmental living conditions of amajority of the world’s population.”“ Three policy initiatives stand out in thisconnection.”“First, preparing for an urban future requires at aminimum, respecting the rights of the poor to thecity. As Chapter 3 shows, many policymakers
continue to try to prevent urban growth bydiscouraging rural – urban migration…….”

The Economist may have best stated the imperative for “These attempts to prevent migration are futile,reform: the alternative is worse: a nation of renters andcounterproductive and wrong – a violation ofrentiers, where only the rich own houses.
people’s rights.”
Wendell Cox
Hugh Pavletich10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

10th Annual Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction by Alain Bertaud

Front

Executive Summary

1

1. Rating Housing Affordability

6

1.1 The Standard: The Median Multiple

7

1.2 The Median Multiple: Historical International Consistency

7

2. Housing Affordability in 20139

2.1 International Summary

92.2 Summary by Geography

13

Australia

14

Canada15

China SAR (Hong Kong)

16

Ireland

17

Japan

17

New Zealand

18

Singapore

18

United Kingdom

19

United States

19

3. House Size and the Standard of Living

21

4. The Market Relationship: House Prices and Household Incomes22

5. Prospects for a Better Standard of Living

26

6. Planning for People

29

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Schedule 1: Major Markets Ranked by Affordability

31

Schedule 2: Major Markets by Geography

33

Schedule 3: All Markets Ranked by Affordability

35

Schedule 4: All Markets Ranked by Geography

43

Annex: Uses, Methods and Sources

52

Biographies

57
FIGURES

ES-1: Most & Least Affordable Major Markets

3

1: Housing Affordability: 2004-2013

10

2. Most & Least Affordable Major Markets

10

3: Housing Affordability & Land Regulation

12

4: Overall Housing Affordability

13

5: Housing Affordability Trend: Australia

14

6: Housing Affordability Trend: Canada

15

7: Housing Affordability Trend: United States

20

8: Average New House Size

22

9: House Price to Income Ratios

23
TABLES

ES-1 Demographia Housing Affordability Rating Categories2

ES-2: Housing Affordability by Nation: Major Metropolitan Markets3

ES-3 Housing Affordability by Nation: All Markets

4

1: Land Use Regulation Market Classifications

8

2: Demographia Housing Affordability Rating Categories

9

3: Distribution of Markets by Housing Affordability Rating Category

11

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)4: Housing Affordability by Nation: Major Markets

11

5: Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: All Markets

13

6: Australia: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

15

7: Canada: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

16

8: Hong Kong: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

16

9: Ireland: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

17

10: Japan: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

17

11: New Zealand: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

18

12: Singapore: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

19

13: United Kingdom: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

19

14: United States: Affordability & Severe Unaffordability

21

15: Affordable Housing Markets: Definition

23

16: Metropolitan Market Selection Criteria

55

Permission granted to quote with attribution.
Permission granted for links to this report
http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Permission granted for links to the websites
http://www.demographia.com/
http://www.performanceurbanplanning.org/

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

10th Annual Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey
By Wendell Cox (Demographia) & Hugh Pavletich (Performance Urban Planning)The 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey covers 360 metropolitan markets innine geographies (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the United
Kingdom and the United States). A total of 85 major metropolitan markets --- with more than
1,000,000 population --- are included, including five of the six largest metropolitan areas in the highincome world (Tokyo-Yokohama, New York, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Los Angeles, and London).
1. Rating Housing Affordability
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey rates housing affordability using the “MedianMultiple” in the analysis of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United
Kingdom and the United States. The Median Multiple is widely used for evaluating urban markets, and has
been recommended by the World Bank and the United Nations and is used by the Harvard University Joint
Center on Housing.
Average multiple data (average house price divided by average household income) is used in Japan, wheredata for estimating medians is not readily available.
More elaborate indicators, which mix housing affordability and mortgage affordability can mask the structuralelements of house pricing are often not well understood outside the financial sector. Moreover, they provide
only a "snapshot," because interest rates can vary over the term of a mortgage; however the price paid for thehouse does not. The reality is that, if house prices double or triple relative to incomes, as has occurred inmany severely unaffordable markets, the sum total of mortgage payments will also rise substantially.
Historically, the Median Multiple has been remarkably similar in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, theUnited Kingdom and the United States, with median house prices having generally been from 2.0 to 3.0 times
median household incomes. The Average Multiple reached as low 3.5 and 3.9 in the major metropolitan areasof Japan within the last decade, though further historical data has not been identified.
The historic affordability relationship continues in many housing markets of the United States and Canada.
However, housing affordability has deteriorated sharply in the past decade in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand,
and the United Kingdom and in some markets of Canada and the United States (evidenced by sharply higher.
Median Multiples). In every market where there has been a sustained and significant increase in the MedianMultiple, more restrictive land use policies have been implemented. These policies are referred to in thisSurvey as "urban containment" (also called as "smart growth," "urban consolidation," "compact city policy,""growth management," "densification policy," etc.).
Regrettably, virtually no government administering urban containment policy effectively monitors housing
affordability. However, encouraging developments have been implemented at higher levels of government in
New Zealand and Florida, and there are signs of potential reform elsewhere.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)1

Typically, land use policy authorities fail to compare credible measures of housing affordability with historicalstandards. Moreover, when faced with the reality house cost rises disproportionately high relative to incomes,
seek to identify virtually any cause except for the principal cause itself: the destruction of the competitivemarket for land.
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is produced to fill the gap left by urban planningpolicies that have largely failed to meaningfully monitor housing affordability in the areas under theirjurisdiction. This is an important endeavor. Virtually all of the geographies covered in the Survey are facing
more uncertain economic futures than in the past. As is always the case in such situations, younger people
and lower income people tend to be at greater risk. In this environment, securing a standard of living foryounger people that at least equals that of their parents and facilitates upward mobility for all must be aprincipal policy priority – – – certainly one that is higher of greater importance than urban form, how people
travel or miniscule environmental gains.
Demographia uses the following housing affordability ratings (Table ES-1).
Table ES-1
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
Housing Affordability Rating Categories
RatingSeverely Unaffordable
Seriously Unaffordable
Moderately Unaffordable
Affordable

Median Multiple
5.1 & Over
4.1 to 5.0
3.1 to 4.0
3.0 & Under

2. Housing Affordability in 2013
Housing affordability deteriorated somewhat in the major metropolitan markets. The most affordable major
metropolitan markets were in the United States, Ireland and Japan, each of which had a moderately
unaffordable rating (between 3.1 and 4.0). Canada was rated "seriously unaffordable," with a Median Multipleof 4.5, along with the United Kingdom, at 4.7. Singapore had a Median Multiple of 5.1, for a severely
unaffordable rating. Other severely unaffordable geographies included Australia (6.3), New Zealand (8.0), andHong Kong (14.9). (Table ES-2).
The most affordable major metropolitan markets (Figure ES-1) were in the United States (Figure ES-1), led
by Pittsburgh (2.3) and including burgeoning Atlanta (2.7) and growing Indianapolis (2.7). Hong Kong's
Median Multiple of 14.9 is the highest recorded (least affordable) in the 10 years of the Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey. Again, Vancouver was second only to Hong Kong, with a MedianMultiple of 10.3 Perhaps the most important development is a return to housing unaffordability in coastal
California that rivals the levels leading to the housing bust, in San Francisco (9.2), San Jose (8.7), San Diego(7.9) and Los Angeles (7.9) Sydney (9.0) was the fourth least affordable major market. Highly elevated MedianMultiples were also recorded in Melbourne (8.4), Auckland (8.0) and London (7.3).

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)2

Table ES-2
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: Major Markets (Over 1,000,000 Population)
Affordable Moderately
Seriously
Severely(3.0 &
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable
Total
Under)
Nation(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 & Over)
Australia00055Canada02226China SAR0001
1
Ireland
0
1
0
0
1
Japan
0
1
1
0
2
New Zealand
0
0
0
1
1
Singapore00011United Kingdom
0
1
9
6
16
United States
14
24
6
8
52
TOTAL
14
29
18
24
85

MedianMarket
6.3
4.5
14.9
3.7
4.0
8.0
5.1
4.7
3.5
4.0

Most & Least Affordable Major Markets

All Markets: Amongall 360 markets in the
DEMOGRAPHIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SURVEY
principal analysis,Hong Kong
there were 95
Vancouveraffordable markets,
San Francisco
Sydney84 in the United
San JoseStates, seven in
Melbourne
AucklandCanada and four in
San Diego
Most Affordable Markets
Ireland. There were
Los Angeles
Least Affordable Markets
122 moderately
LondonSt.
Louis
unaffordable markets,
Indianapolis
100 in the United
ClevelandStates, 17 in Canada,Median Multiple:
Cincinnati
BuffaloMedian House Price
three in the United
Atlanta
Divided by Median
Kingdom and one
Rochester (NY)HouseholdIncomeGrand Rapids
each in Japan and(Gross)DetroitIreland. There were
Pittsburgh
67 seriously
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
unaffordable markets
Median Multiple: 2013: 3rd Quarterand 76 severely
Figure ES-1
unaffordable markets.
Australia had 25 severely unaffordable markets, followed by the United States with 23 and the United
Kingdom with 15. New Zealand had five severely unaffordable markets, while Canada had five (Table ES-3).

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)3

Table ES-3
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: All Markets
Affordable Moderately
Seriously
Severely(3.0 &
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable
Under)
Nation(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 & Over)
Australia
001425Canada7
17
6
5
China SAR (Hong Kong)0001
Ireland
4
1
0
0
Japan
0
1
1
0
New Zealand0026Singapore0001
United Kingdom
0
3
15
15
United States
84
100
29
23
TOTAL
95
122
67
76

Total
39
35
1
5
2
8
1
33
236
360

MedianMarket
5.5
3.9
14.9
2.8
4.0
5.5
5.1
4.9
3.4
3.7

3. House Size and the Standard of Living
Housing affordability is an important determinant of the standard of living, because higher cost housing
leaves less in discretionary incomes. There is an important irony between the geographies in the Demographia
Survey. The smallest houses are in the most expensive market (Hong Kong), while the largest houses are in the
United States, which has the best major market housing affordability (Ireland has the best overall housing
affordability). Other things being equal, living space is an important component of the standard of living. On
this score, those who pay the most get the least, while those who pay the least get the most.
4. The Market Relationship: House Prices and Household Incomes
In recent decades, there has been a fundamental decoupling of house prices from household incomes in somemetropolitan markets from the maximum 3.0 affordability standard. House prices have risen at much greater
trajectories than household incomes in many markets This has invariably been associated with urban
containment policy and is most evident in Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom and some markets ofCanada and the United States. All markets rated severely unaffordable (Median Multiple over 5.0) have more
restrictive land use (principally urban containment) policies, which means than no markets rated severely
affordable have liberal land use policy. The same has been true over the entire decade of Demographia Surveys.
Severely unaffordable markets are also more attractive to buyers seeking extraordinary returns on investment.
short term profits. This further raises prices in markets where urban fringe development is largely prohibitedby urban containment's land rationing policies. Substantial international investor activity has been reported in
London, Vancouver, the US West Coast markets of Vancouver, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los
Angeles and San Diego and others. These price increases make such metropolitan areas less livable foraverage and lower income households.
The key to preserving housing affordability is a "competitive land supply," which appears to be incompatible
with urban containment policy both in economic theory and practice. Further, out-of-control house priceescalation destabilizes economies, retarding metropolitan area economic growth and job creation.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)4

Concerns have often been voiced in the United Kingdom, the birthplace of urban containment. In 1971, Sir
Peter Hall characterized the outcomes of Britain's land use policy as being inconsistent "with the objective ofproviding cheap owner occupied housing." More recently, John Muellbaur of Oxford University noted its"resource misallocations that can only be described as grotesque.”
5. Prospects for a Better Standard of Living
Much of the high income world still mired in laggard economic growth. Household incomes have stagnatedor are even declining in real terms. The cost of housing could become an even greater burden for households
when artificially low mortgage interest rates rise to historic norms.
The prospects are mixed among the severely unaffordable markets. All of Australia's major markets andCanada's larger major markets are severely unaffordable and thus at particular risk. Failure to jettison the
Dublin area's destructive regulations could set Ireland up for a replay of is recent financial nightmare.
Yet there are regions of hope. The central government of New Zealand has recognized the problem and ispursuing strategies to open up land supply and reduce housing costs. Both political parties in the United
Kingdom are committed to reforms to improve housing affordability. Singapore's well-designed regulatory
structure, with its emphasis on sufficient supply and affordability is capable of restoring housing affordability.
There is even hope in Canada and the United States, where substantial areas of liberal land use policy remain,which permit residents to move to areas with lower costs of living. This is most evident in the United States,
where the urban containment markets of coastal California (least affordable in the nation), long renowned fortheir attractiveness to domestic migrants, lost more than a 2,000,000 net domestic migrants to other parts of
the nation during the 2000s. For many, especially young households, the "California" dream requires moving
to Texas, Indiana or Georgia.
6. Planning for People
Urban containment policy has rested on various justifications through its long life. Now, urban containment's
principal justification is its purported potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, urban
containment policy is ineffective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Its reductions are miniscule , while its
costs are far beyond any rational level. The European Conference of Ministers of Transport noted theimportance of achieving greenhouse gas emissions "at the lowest overall cost to avoid damaging welfare andeconomic growth."

The Role of Cities: Throughout history, people have moved to cities for better lives, responding to themuch greater and more focused economic opportunities they provided. Cities, in combination with thetechnological and transport advances of the last two centuries have facilitated unparalleled affluence in manynations and have replaced universal poverty with far better lives virtually everywhere. Former World Bank
principal urban planner Alain Bertaud (2004) noted that: Large labor markets are the only raison d’être of large cities.
Most governments place the highest priority on achieving a higher standard of living and less poverty.
Yet, these principal objectives are subverted by urban planning policies that place the urban form or means oftransport above the betterment of people. There is a need to reorient planning to achieve more fundamental
purposes.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)5

10th Annual Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey
Wendell Cox (Demographia) & Hugh Pavletich (Performance Urban Planning)
1. RATING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

T

he 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey covers 85 major metropolitan
markets (more than 1,000,000 population) in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New
Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. These include five of the six largest
metropolitan areas in the high income world (Tokyo-Yokohama, New York, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto,
Los Angeles, and London).1 House price data is obtained from house price indexes or developed fromstatistical databases that account for the vast majority of existing dwellings sold in each of the geographies.
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is unique in providing standardized comparisons ofhousing affordability2 between international housing markets. The 10th Annual Demographia International
Housing Affordability Survey includes estimates from the September quarter (third quarter) of 2013.
Many housing affordability reviews focus only on national data,
Historically, the Medianmasking significant differences between metropolitan markets.
Yet metropolitan real estate markets can vary significantly in
Multiple has been remarkably
house price trends, as the experience in the United States
similar among the nations
indicated during the unprecedented house price increases thatsurveyed, with median housedeveloped between 2000 and 2007.3 In contrast, the Demographia
prices generally being 3.0 orInternational Housing Affordability Survey assesses housing
less times median household
affordability within nations, at the metropolitan market level.
income.
This approach not only compares housing affordability within
nations, but also permits comparisons between international markets where historical similarities are indicatedbetween housing affordability indices.

1

The sixth is Seoul.
Housing affordability is considered in the Demographia Survey at the middle of the market, and thus uses median house prices
and median household incomes. This is to be contrasted with "affordable housing," which often refers to low-income housing orsocial housing. Affordable housing is important and is exacerbated by the same restrictive land use policies that have destroyed
the historic relationship between house prices and incomes. Housing policy requires a strong focusing on affordable housing, but
it also requires a broader focus relating to the entire population. The consequences, among others are slower economic growth,less job creation and greater poverty.
3
In the United States, housing became seriously unaffordable or severely unaffordable in a number of metropolitan markets (allof them with urban containment regulation). Yet in many other metropolitan markets, housing remained affordable. The national
average trend in housing affordability does not reflect these differences. Details on this divergence in affordability by market in
the United States is covered in a Heritage Foundation policy report.
2

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

6

1.1 The Standard: The Median Multiple
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey uses the “Median Multiple”4 (median house pricedivided by gross annual median household income5) to assess housing affordability. The Median Multiple iswidely used for evaluating urban markets, and has been recommended by the World Bank6 and the United
Nations and is used by the Harvard University Joint Center on Housing.7
More elaborate indicators, which often mix housing affordability and mortgage affordability can mask the
structural elements of house pricing, are often not well understood outside the financial sector. The mixed
indicators provide only a "snapshot," because interest rates can vary over the term of a mortgage; however
the price paid for the house does not.
The Median Multiple is a reliable, easily understood and essential structural indicator for measuring the healthof residential markets and facilitates meaningful and transparent comparisons of housing affordability.
Further to this, the Median Multiple provides a solid foundation for the consideration of structural policy
options for restoring and maintaining housing affordability in local markets.
1.2 The Median Multiple: Historical International Consistency
Historically, the Median Multiple has been remarkably similar among six of the nations surveyed for the stockof homes included in principal national reports. Reserve Bank of Australia research has shown that the priceto-income ratio was at or below 3.0 in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and theUnited States until the late 1980s or late 1990s, depending on the nation (See Section 4). This historicaffordability relationship of a Median Multiple in the range of from 2.0 to 3.0, with 3.0 as the outer bound ofaffordability continues in many housing markets of the United States and Canada.8 The 3.0 standard wasnoted in research by Arthur C. Grimes, of Motu Economics and Policy Research and Chair of the Board of
the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
This makes comparisons between these nations, such as those made by international organizations (such as
by the International Monetary, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World
Bank), central banks and other analysts especially appropriate.
In recent decades, housing affordability has deteriorated materially across Australia, Ireland, New Zealand 9
and the United Kingdom, virtually without regard to market size or demand. There has also been substantial
housing affordability deterioration in some markets of Canada and the United States. Severe losses in housing
affordability have occurred in Hong Kong.
The causes of deteriorating housing affordability are not a mystery. As long-time Governor of the Reserve
Bank of New Zealand Donald Brash put it in his introduction to the 4th Annual Demographia International
Housing Affordability Survey:
4

Also called a price-to-income ratio.
This is to be contrasted with median "family" income, which is higher and would produce a lower multiple.
6
The Housing Indicators Program, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/3363871169578899171/rd-hs7.htm. Also see Shlomo Angel, Housing Policy Matters: A Global Analysis. Oxford University Press, 2000.
7
Indicators of Sustainable Development: House Price-to-income Ratio: http://esl.jrc.it/envind/un_meths/UN_ME050.htm.
8
A value below 2.0 is affordable, but may indicate depressed economic conditions.
9Interest.co.nz also provides housing affordability data using a Median Multiple measure. Interest.co.nz uses a standardized
household, rather than the median income household (see: http://www.interest.co.nz/HLA/house_price_to_income_ratio.asp)
5

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)7

...the affordability of housing is overwhelmingly a function of just one thing, the extent to which governments place
artificial restrictions on the supply of residential land.
Operating at cross-purposes, many governments have adopted urban containment land regulations (alsoreferred to as "densification," “compact development,” “urban consolidation,” “growth management,”“smart growth,” or "livability" policies). that ration land for development. Urban containment severely rations
land for development, leading to materially higher land prices, which makes houses more expensive, just as
rationing oil increases the price of petrol (Table 1).
`
Table 1LAND USE REGULATION CLASSIFICATIONS
The land use regulation categories used in the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey are as follows:
Urban Containment (More Restrictive Land Use Regulation) relies on intrusive land use regulation, and includes markets
where residential development (new construction) is strongly controlled by comprehensive plans or development limits.
Generally, it is an urban planning objective to make urban containment the only legal regulatory structure. There is a strong
campaign to make the principal alternative, liberal regulation (below), illegal.
Urban containment10 may also be characterized by terms such as "densification policy," “compact development”, “urban
consolidation”, “growth management” “and " smart growth.” Generally, urban containment regulation is “plan-driven,” as planningdepartments and governments determine where new housing is allowed to be built. There is a "negative presumption," with newdevelopment generally prohibited, except in limited areas where it is permitted by government plans.
By severely limiting or even prohibiting development on the urban fringe, urban containment eliminates the "supply vent" of urban
fringe development, by not allowing the supply of housing to keep up with demand, except at prices elevated well above historic
norms. In addition to higher costly housing costs relative to incomes, the higher densities in urban containment markets areassociated with greater traffic congestion and longer average work trip journey times.
Urban containment policies are normally accompanied by costly development impact fee regimes that disproportionately charge
the cost of the necessary infrastructure for growth on new house buyers. There is particular concern about the cost increasing
impacts of these fees and levies, especially in Australia, Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation), New Zealand(New Zealand Productivity Commission) and California.
Liberal Land Use Policy (Less Restrictive Markets) applies in markets not classified as "urban containment." In thesemarkets, residential development is allowed to occur based upon consumer preferences, subject to reasonable environmental
regulation.11 Generally, liberal land use regulation is “demand-driven” There is a presumption allowing land to be developed,
except in limited areas, such as parks and environmentally sensitive areas. By allowing development on the urban fringe, liberalland use regulation allows the "supply vent" to operate, which keeps house prices affordable. Less restrictive regulation can also
be called traditional or liberal regulation. In addition to lower costly housing costs relative to incomes, lower population densities
in liberal markets are associated with less intense traffic congestion and shorter average work trip journey times.
Classification of Major Markets: The classification of major markets (metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population)
is described in the Annex and in Figure 3.

10

The term "urban containment" is used throughout the Survey to denote more restrictive land use regulation.
Liberal land use policy may vary widely, from the near deregulation in some areas of Texas to the "light-handed" zoning based
regulations operating throughout much of the rest of the United States.
11

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

8

Regrettably, virtually no government administering urban containment policy effectively monitors housing
affordability. However, encouraging developments have been implemented at higher levels of government in
New Zealand and Florida, and there are signs of potential reform elsewhere.
Typically, land use policy authorities fail to compare credible measures of housing affordability with historicalstandards (above). Moreover, when faced with the reality house cost rises disproportionately high relative toincomes, seek to identify virtually any cause except for the principal cause itself: the destruction of thecompetitive market for land.
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is produced to fill the gap left by urban planningpolicies that have largely failed to meaningfully monitor housing affordability in the areas under theirjurisdiction. This is important information that should have been routinely made available by implementing
governments through the decades of urban containment policy. Virtually all of the geographies covered in theSurvey are facing more uncertain economic futures than in the past. As is always the case in such situations,younger people and lower income people tend to be at greater risk. In this environment, securing a standardof living for younger people that at least equals that of their parents and facilitates upward mobility for all
must be a principal policy priority – – – certainly one that is higher of greater importance than urban form,
motive transport or miniscule environmental gains.
Housing Affordability Ratings: The 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey uses
existing house sales transaction data to rate housing affordability in the 360 markets. Housing affordability
ratings are assigned using the Median Multiple (Table 2).
Table 2
Demographia Housing Affordability Rating Categories
RatingSeverely Unaffordable
Seriously Unaffordable
Moderately Unaffordable
Affordable

Median Multiple
5.1 & Over
4.1 to 5.0
3.1 to 4.0
3.0 & Under

2. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN 2013
2.1 International SummaryThe distribution of housing affordability in the 85 major metropolitan markets12 (those with more than
1,000,000 residents) has deteriorated over the past year (Figure 1 and Table 3). Hong Kong remains
the least affordable, with a Median Multiple of 14.9, while Vancouver is second least affordable, 1t
10.3. The most important development, however, is a return to Median Multiples reminiscent ofratios at the peak of the housing crisis in California, especially in San Francisco (9.2), San Jose (8.7), San
Diego (7.9) and Los Angeles (7.7). Across the major markets of California, the Median Multiple has increased
at more than three times the national rate, following the trough of 2009. Melbourne deteriorated to a MedianMultiple of 8.4, while Auckland was at 8.0 and London at 7.3 (Figure 2).

12Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the United States was added as a major metropolitan market in 2013.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)9

Housing Affordability: 2004-2013
MAJOR MARKETS (OVER 1,000,000 POPULATION)
15

12Median Multiple

Australia
Canada9

Hong Kong
Ireland6

New ZealandUnited Kingdom
United States

3

0
2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Figure 1

Most & Least Affordable Major Markets
DEMOGRAPHIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SURVEY
Hong Kong
Vancouver
San Francisco
SydneySan Jose
Melbourne
AucklandSan Diego
Los Angeles
LondonSt. Louis
Indianapolis
ClevelandCincinnati
BuffaloAtlantaRochester (NY)Grand Rapids
Detroit
Pittsburgh

Most Affordable Markets
Least Affordable Markets

Median Multiple:
Median House Price
Divided by MedianHousehold Income(Gross)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Median Multiple: 2013: 3rd Quarter10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

14

16

Figure 2

10

The number of affordable markets dropped to 14 from 20, while there was an increase in the number ofmoderately unaffordable markets (from 23 to 29). The number of seriously unaffordable markets increased
from 14 to 18, while the number of severely unaffordable markets rose by one to 24.
Table 3Distribution of Markets by Housing Affordability Rating Category
Rating
Affordable
Moderately Unaffordable
Seriously Unaffordable
Severely Unaffordable
TOTAL

Median Multiple
3.0 or Less
3.1 to 4.0
4.1 to 5.0
5.1 & Over

Major Markets(Number)
14
29
18
24
85

All Markets(Number)
95
122
67
76
360

All 14 of the affordable major markets were in the United States. Among the 29 moderately unaffordable
markets, 24 were in the United States, two in were in Canada, one each was in Ireland, the United Kingdom
and Japan. All of the major markets of Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore were severely
unaffordable. Nearly one-third of the major markets in the United Kingdom and one-third of the major
markets in Canada were severely unaffordable. Eight of the 52 major US markets were severely unaffordable(Table 4).
Table 4
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: Major Markets (Over 1,000,000 Population)
Affordable Moderately
Seriously
Severely(3.0 &
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable
Total
Under)
Nation(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 & Over)
Australia00055Canada02226China SAR0001
1
Ireland
0
1
0
0
1
Japan
0
1
1
0
2
New Zealand
0
0
0
1
1
Singapore00011United Kingdom
0
1
9
6
16
United States
14
24
6
8
52
TOTAL
14
29
18
24
85

MedianMarket
6.3
4.5
14.9
3.7
4.0
8.0
5.1
4.7
3.5
4.0

The most affordable major market was Pittsburgh (2.3), followed by Detroit (2.5), Grand Rapids andRochester (2.6). Fast-growing Atlanta had a Median Multiple of 2.7. There
were 29 moderately unaffordable major markets. These were distributed
Hong Kong, Vancouver
between four geographies, the United States (25), Canada (2), Ireland (1),San Francisco, Sydney,
and Japan, where megacity Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto had an Average Multiple ofMelbourne and3.5. There were 18 seriously unaffordable major markets.
Auckland were themost unaffordable

There were also 24 severely unaffordable markets. Hong Kong had mostmajor markets...
unaffordable housing , with a Median Multiple of 14.9. This was the fourthyear in a row that Hong Kong was the least affordable. Vancouver (10.3) was the second most unaffordable.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

11

This was the sixth year in a row that Vancouver ranked as one of the three least affordable major markets in
the Survey. Third ranking San Francisco's housing affordability deteriorated markedly, from 7.8 to 9.2. Sydneyranked fourth most unaffordable of the major markets, at 9.0, followed by San Jose (8.7), Melbourne (8.4)
and Auckland (8.0).
As in the past, each of seriously unaffordable and severely unaffordable markets were characterized by urban
containment regulation. At the same time, the affordable markets are generally characterized by liberal land
use regulation, which is associated with greater housing affordability (Table 1, above and Figure 3).
All Markets: Amongthe 360 metropolitan
markets, Ireland's weremost affordable, with aMedian Multiple of 2.8(Figure 4). This is themost affordable
national rating in the
10 years of the Survey.
The United States was
the second mostaffordable, at 3.4,
followed by Canada(3.9) and Japan (4.0).
The least affordable
markets were in Hong
Kong (14.9), Australia(5.5) and New Zealand(5.5), Singapore (5.1)
and the United
Kingdom (4.9).

Housing Affordability & Land Regulation
METROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 2,000,000 POPULATION
Hong K ong
Vancouver
San Francisco
S ydney
Mel bourne
San Diego
Los Angeles
London (GLA)
London Exurbs
New York
TorontoB risbane
BostonSeat tle
Miami
S ingapore
Port land
B irmingham (UK)Riverside-S B
Mont real
DenverManchest er
Washingt on (DC)S acramento
Tokyo
Leeds
Baltim ore, MD
Philadelphia
Phoeni x
OrlandoChicagoOsaka-K-K
S an Ant onio
Tampa-S TP
Charlot te
HoustonM inneapolis-S TP
Dallas-FTW
Kansas City
St. Louis
Cleveland
Atlanta
Detroit
Pitt sburgh

Less Re strictive Land Use Regula tion
More Rest rictive Land Use Regulatio nNote: Chicago
classification correctedfrom original

Figure 3

MEDIAN MULTIPLE
0

3

6

9

12

15

Among all markets, 95
were affordable (Median Multiple of 3.0 or less). There were 122 moderately unaffordable markets (MedianMultiple of 3.1 to 4.0) and 67 seriously unaffordable markets (Median Multiple of 4.1 to 5.0). A total of 76
markets were severely unaffordable markets (Median Multiple of 5.1 or higher). Overall, the Median Multiple
was 3.7 (Table 4).
The 360 markets are ranked by housing affordability in Schedule 3. All of the 95 affordable markets (having aMedian Multiple of 3.0 or below) were in Ireland (4), Canada (7) and the United States (84). Of the 17 mostaffordable markets, 16 were in the United States and one was in Ireland. There were no affordable markets inAustralia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore or the United Kingdom.
The 122 moderately unaffordable markets were divided between the United States (100 and), Canada (17), theUnited Kingdom (3), Ireland (1) and Japan (1). There were no moderately unaffordable markets in Australia
Hong Kong, New Zealand or Singapore (Table 5).

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

12

The 76 severely unaffordable markets were divided between Australia (25), the United States (23), the United
Kingdom (15), New Zealand (6), Canada (5), Hong Kong (1) and Singapore (1).

Overall Housing Affordability: 2013
MEDIAN MULTIPLE (HIGHER IS LESS AFFORDABLE)
15
Median Multiple:
Median House Price
Divided by MedianHousehold Income

Median Multiple

12
9
6
3
0

Australia Canada

HK

Japan Ireland

NZ Singapore UK

US

Figure 4
Table 5
Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: All Markets
Affordable Moderately
Seriously
Severely(3.0 &
Unaffordable Unaffordable Unaffordable
Under)
Nation(3.1-4.0)(4.1-5.0)(5.1 & Over)
Australia
001425Canada7
17
6
5
China SAR (Hong Kong)0001
Ireland
4
1
0
0
Japan
0
1
1
0
New Zealand0026Singapore0001
United Kingdom
0
3
15
15
United States
84
100
29
23
TOTAL
95
122
67
76

Total
39
35
1
5
2
8
1
33
236
360

MedianMarket
5.5
3.9
14.9
2.8
4.0
5.5
5.1
4.9
3.4
3.7

2.2 Summary by Geography
The housing affordability situation is summarized by nation below. Major metropolitan area details areprovided in Schedules 1 and 2.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

13

Australia: Each of the five major markets continues of Australia continues to be severely unaffordable(Table 6).13 Moreover, each of Australia's major markets has been severely unaffordable for all 10 years of theSurvey (a distinction shared only with New Zealand, with its single major market, Auckland). Each ofAustralia's major markets, with the exception of Sydney had housing affordability within the 3.0 MedianMultiple norm during the 1980s, before the widespread adoption of urban containment policies, which isreferred to as "urban consolidation" in Australia (Figure 4).
The overall Median Multiple was 6.3 among the major metropolitan markets. Housing affordability
deteriorated markedly in Sydney, from a Median Multiple of 8.3 to
9.0 in 2013. Melbourne also experienced a substantial loss in... each of Australia's major
housing affordability, from a Median Multiple of 7.5 in 2012 to 8.4
markets has been severelyin 2013. Adelaide (6.3), Perth (6.0) and Brisbane (5.8) were little
unaffordable for all 10 years ofchanged from last year.
the "Demographia Survey"
Among all markets, Australia's Median Multiple remained at a severely unaffordable 5.8. After major markets
Sydney (9.0) and Melbourne (8.4). Port Macquarie (NSW) was third most unaffordable, at 8.1, followed by
the Sunshine Coast (QLD), at 8.0 and the Gold Coast (QLD) at 7.7.
None of Australia's markets was rated either affordable or moderately unaffordable. The land rich Pilbara
mining region of Western Australia was generally more affordable than the rest of Australia, but both markets
were seriously
unaffordable. Karratha
had a Median Multiple
MAJOR MARKETS: 1981-2013
of 4.1, Australia's best,
while Port Hedland
10
had a Median Multiple
Sydney9of 5.0.
Melbourne

Housing Affordability Trend: Australia

Brisbane
Adelaide
PerthHobartCanberra

8

Other seriously
unaffordable markets
included Gladstone(QLD) with a medianmultiple of 4.2,
Townsville (QLD) and
Mildura (VIC) with aMedian Multiple of 4.5
and nine others.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

2011

2006

2001

1996

1991

1986

1981

0

Figure 513House price data for Australia is from multiple sources, the most important being the Real Estate Industry Association of
Queensland, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Western
Australia, Australian Property Monitors, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and various real estate internet web sites. Data forsome smaller markets is for the year ended September 2013.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

14

Table 6
AUSTRALIA MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & OverAdelaide, SA
Perth, WA
Brisbane, QLD
Sydney, NSW
Melbourne, VIC

NONECanada: Housing affordability worsened in Canada's major metropolitan markets, which have an overallrating of severely unaffordable, at a Median Multiple of 4.5 (Table 7).14 A recent Deutsch Bank report rated
Canada's housing as the most overvalued among 20 OECDnations. The housing affordability losses were concentrated in
A recent Deutsch Bank report
Vancouver, which continues to be the most unaffordable
rated Canada's housing as themetropolitan area except for Hong Kong (10.3) and Toronto,most overvalued among 20
which now has a Median Multiple of 6.2, its highest in history
OECD nations.
(Figure 6).
Among all markets, housing in Canada is moderately unaffordable with a Median Multiple of 3.9, somewhat
worse than last year's 3.6. Housing had been affordable overall in Canada as late as 2000.

MAJOR MARKETS: 2004-2013
11

TorontoMontreal
Vancouver
OttawaCalgary
Edmonton

10
9
8
7
6

9

5
4

3
2
1

2012

2010

2008

0

2006

In addition to
Vancouver, the threemost unaffordable
metropolitan markets
were in British

Housing Affordability Trend: Canada

2004

Canada's mostaffordable market was
Moncton (NB), withMedian Multiple of
2.3. Saint John (NB)
had a Median Multipleof 2.5, followed byFredericton (NB) witha Median Multiple of
2.6 and Windsor(ON), at 2.7. Thunder
Bay (ON),Charlottetown (PEI),
and Trois-Rivieres(QC) were also rated
affordable.

Figure 614

House price data for Canada is based on data from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Toronto Real Estate
Board, Fédération des chambres immobilières du Québec, Chambre immobilière du Grand Montréal, the Calgary Real Estate
Board, the Edmonton Real Estate Board, the Canadian Real Estate Association and the Realtors Association of HamiltonBurlington.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)15

Columbia, including Victoria (6.9), Kelowna (5.9) and the Fraser Valley (5.9). Like Vancouver, house prices
in these markets have been driven extraordinarily higher relative to incomes by urban containment
regulations.
Table 7
CANADA MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

NONE

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & Over
Toronto, ON

Vancouver, BC

Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region, China):, Hong Kong, had the most unaffordable housing in
the Survey for the fourth straight year, with a Median Multiple of 14.915 (Table 8). Hong Kong has the most
unaffordable Median Multiple in the history of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (LosAngeles reached 11.5 in 2007, at the height of the California-led US
Hong Kong, had the most
housing crisis, which precipitated the world-wide Great Financial Crisis).

unaffordable housing in
the Survey for the fourthstraight year, with aMedian Multiple of 14.9

Hong Kong's housing affordability has declined materially in recent
years. The Chinese University of Hong Kong's' Quality of Life Index
indicated that its house price to household income ratio had risen morethan 170 percent in 2002. Further, academic research has demonstrated
that house prices have been driven considerably higher by land-use restrictions in Hong Kong.16
Moreover, the Hong Kong Median Multiple is nearly three times
that of Singapore, which has a broadly similar housing stock. It
is more than three times the Average Multiples of megacities
Tokyo-Yokohama and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, which havesubstantial higher rise multi-family owned housing stock, similar
to that in Hong Kong. Housing affordability in Hong Kong israted as severely unaffordable.

Ireland has the distinction of
having earned the mostfavorable Median Multiple in
the history of the"Demographia Survey," at 2.8

Savill's which rates housing affordability for luxury residential space rates Hong Kong as the most expensive
city in the world, a title Hong Kong has held for the past five years.
Table 8HONG KONG: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & OverNONE

Hong Kong

15

House price developed from the Land Registry data.
Hui, C. M. & F. K. Wong (n.d.), "Dynamic Impact of Land Supply on Population Mobility with Evidence from Hong Kong,"
http://www.prres.net/Papers/Hui_Dynamic_impact_of_land_supply_on_population_mobility.pdf.
16

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)16

Ireland: Ireland house prices have now nearly returned to normal affordability as a result of the housing bust.
Ireland has the distinction of having earned the most favorable Median Multiple in the history of the
Demographia Survey, at 2.8.17 Dublin, the only major metropolitan market, was the least affordable with aMedian Multiple of 3.7 (Table 9). Waterford (2.0) was rated as the most affordable in Ireland and fourth mostaffordable out of the 360 metropolitan areas in the Survey. All of Ireland's other markets (Cork, Galway andLimerick were also rated affordable).
Table 9IRELAND: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & Over

NONE

NONE

Japan: Data is available for only two of Japan's two major metropolitan markets, Tokyo-Yokohama18 andOsaka-Kobe-Kyoto.19 Tokyo-Yokohama is the world's largest urban area (37 million), and the metropolitan
areas covers all or part of four prefectures, Tokyo (called the "Tokyo metropolis," though only part of themetropolitan area),20 as well as largely suburban Kanagawa,
Saitama and Chiba. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto ranks as the 14th largest... Japan has the most affordable
urban area in the world (17 million) and covers all or part ofhousing of any megacities (overOsaka, Hyogo, Kyoto and Nara prefectures.
10,000,000 residents) in the"Demographia Survey."

Housing is seriously unaffordable in Tokyo-Yokohama, with a
4.4 Average Multiple (average house price divided by average household income).21 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto has
an Average Multiple of 3.5 and is thus rated as moderately unaffordable (Table 10).22 Despite these ratings,
Japan has the most affordable housing of any megacities (over 10,000,000 residents) in the Demographia Survey.
Table 10
JAPAN: MAJOR TWO LARGEST METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & Over

NONE

NONE

17

House prices calculated from the Residential Property Price Register of the Property Services Regulatory Authority.
The Tokyo metropolitan area is principally located in the prefectures of Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa and Saitama. It is not to be
confused with the "Tokyo metropolis," which is another name for the prefecture of Tokyo.
19
The Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto metropolitan area is largely contained in the prefectures of Osaka, Hyogo, Kyoto and Nara.
20
This popularly used term ("metropolis") is misleading, because it does not apply to the metropolitan area. The failure tounderstand this distinction has resulted in invalid demographic analyses from time to time.
21
The Average Multiple is used because there is insufficient data from which to estimate a Median Multiple. The Average
Multiple tracks closely with the Median Multiple, where such comparisons can be made. For example, in both Canada and theUnited States, the Average Multiple was 0.2 lower than the Median Multiple in 2010 (Calculated from Statistics Canada National
Household Survey: 2011 data and National Association of Realtors data in the United States). The ratings are considered
provisional because the Median Multiple and Average Multiple may not be strictly comparable.
22
House prices are estimated from The Land Institute of Japan data (http://www.lij.jp/english/).
18

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)17

New Zealand: New Zealand's only major metropolitan market, Auckland, is severely unaffordable, with aMedian Multiple of 8.0 (Table 11). Auckland ranks as the seventh most unaffordable among the 85 existing
major markets. Auckland, like Australia's five major metropolitan markets, has been rated severely
unaffordable in all 10 Demographia International Housing Affordability Surveys.
Overall, housing in New Zealand was severely unaffordable, with a Median Multiple of 5.5.23 Six of New
Zealand's markets were severely unaffordable, while two markets were seriously unaffordable. Outside of
Auckland, Tauranga-Western Bay of Plenty was the most unaffordable, with a Median Multiple of 6.6. The
second and third largest markets were severely unaffordable, with Christchurch at 5.8, and Wellington at 5.4.
Two markets were seriously unaffordable, Palmerston North-Manawatu, at 4.5 and Hamilton-Waikato, at 4.8
Table 11NEW ZEALAND: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & OverNONE

AucklandSingapore: The Median Multiple in Singapore was estimated at 5.1 in the third quarter of 2013,24 for a ratingof severely unaffordable (Table 12). Singapore has perhaps the most land constrained geography of any major
metropolitan area in the world, both by virtue of its being an island and having no mainland periphery. As aresult, there is virtually no potential for greenfield development.25
In Singapore, publicly sponsored but privately owned housing (under the aegis of the Housing andDevelopment Board (HDB) represents nearly 90 percent of the owned market. Singapore has an overall 88
percent rate of home ownership, the highest of any geography in the Survey. Buyers are free to sell their own
houses, without any further intervention by HDB. Further, there are
Singapore's housing is
restrictions on foreign ownership, which may have shielded Singapore
three times as affordablefrom the heightened cost escalation that may be occurring fromas Hong Kong's, though
globalization of the real estate market in places like Vancouver, coastal
less affordable than Tokyo
California, Hong Kong and London.
and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
With severely unaffordable housing, Singapore has not been as successful as might have been hoped. In someyears insufficient supply was produced, which resulted in the now elevated costs. But, by comparison to
metropolitan areas that have followed the British urban containment model, Singapore's results have beenstellar. Housing affordability has virtually spiraled out of control in places like Hong Kong, Vancouver, San
Francisco, San Jose, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland and London, reaching levels of 7.0 to nearly 15.0.
Part of the of the reason Singapore has not experienced the catastrophic housing affordability of Hong Kong,
Vancouver, San Francisco and Sydney is that its regulation is focused on maintaining an adequate supply ofaffordable housing. This is virtually the opposite of urban containment regulatory regimes, which to severely
limit land supply and to virtually ignore the housing affordability impacts.
23

Part of the variation in New Zealand Median Multiples since last year was due to recalibration of income data based on the2013 Census (which had been delayed from 2011 due to the Christchurch earthquakes)
24
Median house price from the Singapore Real Estate Exchange.
25
Faced with a similar situation, treaties between Switzerland, France and Germany effectively create international metropolitan
areas (labor markets) by the use of cross border commuting permits in the Basel and Geneva areas.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)18

It is notable that Singapore has a housing stock generally similar to that of Hong Kong, less developable land,
larger houses and a Median Multiple approximately two-thirds lower.
Table 12SINGAPORE: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & OverNONE

Singapore

United Kingdom: Among the major markets, housing is seriously unaffordable in the major markets, with aMedian Multiple of 4.7 (Table 13). London (the Greater London Authority) was the least affordable market,
with a median multiple of 7.3. The next least affordable major markets were Plymouth & Devon, at 7.0 and
the London Exurbs (East and Southeast England, virtually all outside the London greenbelt) at 6.4. Threeother major markets, Bristol – Bath, Liverpool & Merseyside, and Stoke-on-Trent & Staffordshire wereseverely unaffordable. There were no moderately unaffordable nor any affordable major markets.26
Among all markets, the United Kingdom has a Median Multiple of 4.9, slightly improved from last year's 5.1.
Falkirk had the best housing affordability, with a Median Multiple of 3.5, followed by Belfast, at 3.6. Each ofthese markets was rated moderately unaffordable. There are no affordable markets in the United Kingdom
Bournemouth & Dorsett was the most unaffordable of all UK markets, with a Median Multiple of 8.6.
Table 13
UNITED KINGDOM: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under

NONE

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & Over
Bristol-BathLondon Exurbs (E & SE England)
Liverpool & Merseyside
Plymouth & Devon
London (GLA)
Stoke-on-Trent & Staffordshire

United States: Housing affordability deteriorated in the major markets27 of the United States from a Market
Median of 3.2 to 3.5.28 This year, 14 major markets are rated as affordable, down from 20 last year (Table 14).
There are 24 moderately unaffordable major markets, six seriously unaffordable markets and eight severely
unaffordable markets (Figure 7).
The most affordable major markets are Pittsburgh (2.3), Detroit (2.5), Grand Rapids (2.6), Rochester (2.6)
with six additional markets having a Median Multiple of 2.7. This includes Atlanta, which has been among thefastest-growing large metropolitan areas in the high income world for three decades.

26

Median house prices are calculated from the Land Registry of England and Wales, the Registers of Scotland and the
University of Ulster data.
27
Grand Rapids, Michigan has been added by the United States Census Bureau as the 52nd metropolitan area with more than
1,000,000 population.
28
House prices derived from the National Association of Realtors, the National Home Builders Association, Realcomp (Detroit),
the Clarksville (Tennessee) Association of Realtors, the Coastal Carolinas Association of Realtors and the Arkansas Realtors
Association.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)19

Houston, which has virtually always been rated affordable is now moderately unaffordable, with a MedianMultiple of 3.3. This increase has been attributed to the rapid increase in demand for housing, which strained
local land developers in the delivery of finished lots.29 This is likely to be a temporary situation.
The least affordable markets were San Francisco (9.2) and San Jose (8.7). They were joined by two other
California metropolitan areas, San Diego (7.9) and Los Angeles (7.7). New York was the fifth most
unaffordable with a median multiple of 6.2, followed by Boston (5.4), Seattle (5.3), Miami (5.3) and Portland(4.8).
The 10 year history of housing affordability in the 10 largest metropolitan areas of the United States indicatethat four are now severely unaffordable (Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Miami), all of which havemore restrictive land use regulation (Table 1). The recent serious deterioration of housing affordable in Los
Angeles is particularly evident. Washington, also with more restrictive
Soon-to-be major
land use regulation, is seriously unaffordable. Philadelphia, Chicago,
metropolitan
area Honolulu
Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and Atlanta, which straddle the maximum
was the least affordable inaffordability Median Multiple of 3.0 (Figure 6), with the most liberal
regulation in the latter three.
the US... at 9.4.
Among all US markets, 36 markets were rated affordable. The most affordable markets were Rockford,
Illinois and Utica, New York (both 1.7). Warner Robbins, Georgia had a median multiple of 1.9 while four
metropolitan areas, Appleton, Wisconsin, Decatur, Illinois, Lansing, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio had MedianMultiples of 2.0.

Housing Affordability Trend: United States
10 LARGEST MAJOR MARKETS: 2004-2013
12

11

New York

10

Los Angeles

9

Chicago8

Dallas-Fort Worth7

Houston6

Philadelphia

5

Washington

4

Miami

3

Atlanta2

Boston

1
2012

2010

2008

2006

0
2004

Soon-to-be major
metropolitan area30
Honolulu was the least
affordable in the US,
which at 9.4. In theinternational rankings
Honolulu trailed only
Hong Kong andVancouver. Santa
Barbara was second
least affordable (9.3)
San Francisco (9.2)
ranked third, withnearby Santa Cruz as
third fourth least
affordable, at 9.0. San
Jose was the fifth least
affordable market (8.7).
Eleven of the twelve
most unaffordable
markets in the UnitedFigure 729David Wessell and Kris Hudson (August 19, 2013), "Houston Hits Housing Hurdle," The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323455104579017182650412434.
30
At the present growth rate, Honolulu will exceed 1,000 residents by 2015.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

20

States were in California, including five in the San Francisco Bay area (San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz,
Napa and Santa Rosa).
There are indications of a substantial worsening housing affordability situation in California, which was thecore of the US housing bust of the last decade that precipitated the Great Financial Crisis. House prices in thesix major markets of California have risen nearly 40% relative to incomes since bottoming out in 2009. Evenat the 2009 low point, however, four of the six markets had Median Multiples well above historic norms. By
comparison, in the other 46 major markets, house price increases have averaged only 12%, less than one-thirdthat of the California markets. The Median Multiple has been returned to near peak pre-bust levels in San
Francisco (9.2) and San Jose (8.7), while San Diego (7.9) and Los Angeles (7.7) are close behind.
The largest increases have been in Riverside San Bernardino, which has risen 57% to 4.4 and Sacramento,
which has risen 42% to 3.8. California's draconian urban containment law seems likely to drive these prices
even higher.
Overall, the US Median Multiple was 3.4 (moderately unaffordable). The United States had 84 affordable
markets, 100 and moderately unaffordable markets, 29 seriously unaffordable markets and 23 severely
unaffordable markets.
Table 14
UNITED STATES: MAJOR METROPOLITAN MARKETSAFFORDABILITY AND SEVERE UNAFFORDABILITY
AFFORDABLEMedian Multiple: 3.0 & Under
Atlanta, GA
Indianapolis. IN
Buffalo, NY
Kansas City, MO-KS
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Louisville, KY-IN
Cleveland, OH
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Columbus, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
Detroit, MI
Rochester, NY
Grand Rapids, MI
St. Louis,, MO-IL

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLEMedian Multiple 5.1 & Over
Boston, MA-NH
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Miami, FL
San Jose, CA
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA

4. HOUSE SIZE AND THE STANDARD OF LIVING

B

ut housing affordability differences identified in the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
go much deeper than simple housing affordability. House sizes vary even more than housing
affordability among the nine geographies31 (Figure 8). Other things being equal, living space is an
important component of the standard of living.

In living space those who
pay the most get the least,
while those who pay theleast get the most.

Housing affordability is approximately four times better in the major
metropolitan markets of Ireland and the United States than in the most
unaffordable market, Hong Kong. However, the difference in relative
cost per square meter or square foot approach 20 times as high in Hong Kong as in the United States.

31

Third quarter 2013 data for the United States indicates that average and median sized houses have increased further in size,
reach all time records in both indicators (data from the US Census Bureau).

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

21

The differences between the United States (with the least costly major markets) and other geographies are
smaller, with cost per
square meter or squarefoot estimated at. 1.5
GEOGRAPHIES IN DEMOGRAPHIA SURVEY
times as high in Canada,
Square Meters
0
50
100
150
200
250
1.8 times as high inAustralia and Japan, 2.5
United States
times as high in Ireland
and New Zealand and 3.5
Australia
times as high in
New ZealandSingapore and the United
Kingdom (Figure 9).32 In
Canadaliving space those whoJapan
pay the most get the
Ireland
least, while those who
pay the least get theSingapore
most.

Average New House Size

United Kingdom

In this regard, Roy
Hong Kong
Thomas pointed out in
The Containment of Urban
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
England that "theSquare Feet
Figure 8
economical use of land
has not made construction of dwellings cheaper." 33 The combination of unaffordability and reduced housesize in these markets directly refute claims that affordability can be maintained by trade-offs between landconsumption and household space."
4. THE MARKET RELATIONSHIP: HOUSE PRICES AND HOUSEHOLD INCOMES

A

s noted above, there has been a fundamental relationship between house prices and householdincomes, where regulatory systems permit consumer preference to operate (as has been noted
above). National price-to-income ratios were at 3.0 or below in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States until the late 1980s or late 1990s (Figure 9).34
This historic Median Multiple affordability range of 2.0 to 3.0 continues in markets of the United States,
Canada and Ireland (Table 15).35
Decoupling of House Prices from Household Incomes
In recent decades, there has been a fundamental decoupling of house prices from household incomes in somemetropolitan markets. House prices have risen at much greater trajectories than household incomes in many
32

Using the housing affordability relationships identified in this Demographia Survey.
P. Hall, R. Thomas, H Gracey and R. Drewett (1973), The Containment of Urban England, George Allen & Unwin.
34
Anthony Richards, Some Observations on the Cost of Housing in Australia, Address to 2008 Economic and Social Outlook
Conference The Melbourne Institute, 27 March 2008 http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2008/sp-so-270308.html. This research
included all nations covered in the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey except for Ireland. The Richards
research is also illustrated in the of the National Housing Council of Australia,
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/pubs/housing/national_housing_supply/Documents/default.htm (Figure 1.1).
35
A value below 2.0 is affordable, but may indicate depressed economic conditions.
33

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)22

markets This has invariably been associated with urban containment policy and is most evident in Australia,
New Zealand and United Kingdom and some markets of Canada and the United States. The obvious impactof this supply rationing, indicated by economic theory, is higher house prices, other things being equal. In
recent years, it has been typical for the most rigidly regulated urban containment markets to have MedianMultiples from 1.5 to four times (or more) the 3.0 standard.
Table 15
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKETS: DEFINITION
For metropolitan areas to rate as 'affordable' and ensure that housing bubbles are not triggered, housing prices should notexceed three times gross annual household earnings. To allow this to occur, new starter housing of an acceptable quality to thepurchasers, with associated commercial and industrial development, must be allowed to be provided on the urban fringes at 2.5
times the gross annual median household income of that urban market.
The critically important Development Ratios36 for this new fringe starter housing, should be 17 - 23% serviced lot / section cost the balance the actual housing construction.
Ideally through a normal building cycle, the Median Multiple should move from a Floor Multiple of 2.3, through a Swing Multiple of
2.5 to a Ceiling Multiple of 2.7 - to ensure maximum stability and optimal medium and long term performance of the residential
construction sector.
-Hugh Pavletich
Performance Urban Planning

Housing has become severely unaffordable in manyof the markets covered by Demographia International
Housing Affordability Survey, most obviously Australia,
New Zealand and United Kingdom, including both
vibrant and depressed markets. At the same time, inmarkets that have averted wide ranging urban
containment policies, housing has remained far
more affordable.
In fact, over the 10 years of the Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey, allmetropolitan areas that have reached severe housing
affordability (a Median Multiple of more than 5.0)
have had restrictive land-use regulation, especiallyurban containment policy. On the other hand, noliberally regulated metropolitan area has reachedsevere housing affordability. An examination of
longer historical data (available in Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates) confirms this for earlier years.

Source: Reserve Bank of Australia

Figure 936

The development ratio is the cost of the finished land (underlying infrastructure complete) divided by the house construction
cost plus the finished land. This issue is extensively discussed with respect to the United States market in the Demographia
Residential Land & Regulation Cost Index.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)23

From Homes to Global Investment Portfolios
Until recently, metropolitan area housing markets were largely relatively local in scope and catered principally
to households seeking primary residences. There was always some investment activity, even where MedianMultiples were in the affordable range, as investors sought normal returns on investment.
However, the extraordinary returns arising from the rigged markets of urban containment have,understandably, attracted additional investors (pejoratively called"speculators"). This has been noted in research on the US housing...with greater access to local
crisis.37 Moreover, economic research has associated urban
real estate market conditions
containment with greater price volatility and more intense
aroundthe world, metropolitan
speculation.38 Further evidence provided in research finding that,
housing
markets with urbanamong 247 US metropolitan areas in the US housing boom andcontainment policies arebust, those with more restrictive regulation were significantly more
becoming
more attractive tovulnerable to greater house price volatility than those with more39
globalinvestors,
seekingliberal regulation.

extraordinary investment

Now, with greater access to local real estate market conditions
returns.
around the world, metropolitan housing markets with urban
containment policies are becoming more attractive to global investors, seeking extraordinary investment
returns. Substantial international investor activity has been reported in London, Vancouver, the US West
Coast markets of Vancouver, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego and others.
This intensifies the need to respond with policies that right the balance between supply and demand,
facilitating not only better housing for local residents, but also greater economic stability.
Metropolitan Competitiveness Impaired by Urban
Containment Policy
At the same time, research in the United States, the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands associates slower economic growthand job creation with strict land use policies, such as urban
containment.

... research in the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands associates
slower economic growth andjob creation with strict land use
policies, such as urban
containment.

Raven Saks (US Federal Reserve Board) found that where housing supply is more constrained by regulations,employment growth is generally lower than expected. 40 Vermeulen (Netherlands Bureau of Economic
Analysis) and Van Ommeren (VU University) associated slower employment growth in the Randstad, with its

37

A. D. Haughwout, J. Tracy & W. van der Klaauw (2011), "Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle and the Housing Market
Crisis," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
38
E. L. Glaeser, & J. Gyourko (2008), Rethinking Federal Housing Policy: How to Make Housing Plentiful and Affordable,
American Enterprise Institute.
39
A. H. Anundsen & Christian Heeboll, "Supply restrictions, subprime lending and regional US housing prices,"
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/events/2013/13housing_heeboll.pdf
40
R. E. Saks (2005), Job Creation and Housing Construction: Constraints on Metropolitan Area Employment Growth, Federal
Reserve Board.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)24

more stringent housing supply limitations.41 Urban containment policy has also been associated with higher
commercial development costs42 and higher retail prices,43
Economists Brian Jensen and urban economist Edwin Mills concluded that restrictive land use regulations
played a negatively decisive role in the Great Financial Crisis:“Indeed, it is difficult to imagine another plausible cause of the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Popular
accounts simply refer to a speculative housing price bubble. But productivity growth in housing
construction is faster than in the economy as a whole and the US has an aggressive and competitive
housing construction sector. In the absence of excessive controls, housing construction would
quickly deflate a speculative housing price bubble.”44
There is a considerable literature on the economic consequences of urban containment policy.
.
The key to preserving housing affordability is a "competitive land supply," according to Brookings
Institution economist Anthony Downs.45 This requires continual attention to land costs. A sufficient supplyof land cannot be reliably measured by administrative attempts to match projections of supply with demand(such as a "20 year land supply") are not fundamentally rooted in the price of land. There is a simple measureof land supply: there is enough if raw land prices permit development of new housing at historic price ratios
to incomes.46
These are not new concerns. In 1973, Sir Peter Hall, Ray Thomas,
Harry Gracey and Roy Drewett published a two-volume evaluationof the impacts of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. They
characterized the results as being inconsistent "with the objectiveof providing cheap owner occupied housing" and further foundthat that the greatest burdens had been placed on lower income
households. 47

There is a simple measure ofland supply: there is enough if
raw land prices permit
development of new housing at
historic price ratios to incomesPaul Cheshire and Stephen Sheppard of the London School of Economics conclude that “over time
controlling land supply by fiat has generated price distortions on a par with those observed in Soviet bloc
41

W. Vermeulen and J.Van Ommeren (2008), "Does Land Use Planning shape Regional Economies?" Tinbergen Institute,
http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/08004.pdf
42
P. C. Cheshire, & C. Hilber (2008), Office Space Supply Restrictions in Britain: The Political Economy of Market Revenge,
London School of Economics,
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyandenvironment/pdf/office per cent20space per cent20supply per cent20restrictions per
cent20in per cent20britain.pdf
43
B. Lewis, M. Ballek, C. Craig, V. Harris, B. Levi, H. Mullings, I. Osborne, S. Anthoy, D. Bugrov, J. Kondo, V. Palmade, J.
Rames, S. Fidler, N. Lovegrove & M. Baily (1998), Driving productivity and growth in the UK economy, McKinsey Global
Institute,
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/productivity_competitiveness_and_growth/driving_productivity_and_growth_in_the_uk_economy
44
Brian N. Jansen, Edwin S. Mills (2011), Distortions Resulting from Residential Land Use
Controls in Metropolitan Areas, J Real Estate Finan Econ (2013) 46:193–202
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/168/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11146-011-93107.pdf?auth66=1389980141_f43aadde1fe3e4d2aaec56499c5e152c&ext=.pdf
45
Downs, Anthony. New Visions for Metropolitan America (Brookings Institution Press, 1994).
46
Research on the association between urban containment policy and higher housing costs relative to incomes is summarized at"The Association between Prescriptive Land Use Regulation and Higher House Prices.
47
P. Hall, R. Thomas, H Gracey and R. Drewett (1973), The Containment of Urban England, George Allen & Unwin.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)25

countries during the 1970s and 1980s. They further contend that the major aim of restrictive land use policy is“to constrain space consumptions irrespective of any price effects…”48 John Muellbaur of Oxford University
characterizes the United Kingdom’s restrictive land use system as leading “to resource misallocations that can
only be described as grotesque.”49
5. PROSPECTS FOR A BETTER STANDARD OF LIVINGM

uch of the high income world still mired in laggard economic growth. In some nations, such as theUnited States, real incomes have fallen, while income growth has been modest, at best, elsewhere.
The cost of housing could rise even more in the years to come as the artificially low interest rates
of recent years become a thing of the past.
In most nations, housing is the most significant element of the household budget. As a result, housing costs
are an important determinant of the standard of living. Within nations, income adjusted housing prices(measured by the Median Multiple) tend to vary more than other household expenditures between
metropolitan areas. Maintaining and restoring housing affordability, therefore, is important to maximizing thestandard of living and minimizing poverty.
Summary
The prospects are mixed among the severely unaffordable markets. All of Australia's major markets andCanada's larger major markets are severely unaffordable and thus at particular risk. Failure to jettison the
Dublin area's destructive regulations could set Ireland up for a replay of is recent financial nightmare.
Yet there are regions of hope. The central government of New Zealandhas recognized the problem and is pursuing strategies to open up land
supply and reduce housing costs. Both political parties in the United
Kingdom are committed to reforms to improve housing affordability.
Singapore's well-designed regulatory structure, with its emphasis on
sufficient supply and affordability is capable of restoring housing
affordability.

For many ... the"California" dreamrequires moving to Texas,
Indiana or Georgia.

There is even hope in Canada and the United States, where substantial areas of liberal land use policy remain,which permit residents to move to areas with lower costs of living. This is most evident in the United States,
where the urban containment markets of coastal California (least affordable in the nation), long renowned fortheir attractiveness to domestic migrants, lost more than a 2,000,000 net domestic migrants to other parts of
the nation during the 2000s. For many, especially young households, the "California" dream requires moving
to Texas, Indiana or Georgia.
More Detailed Prospects

Australia: As the data cited above indicates, house prices have been decoupled from their historic nexus withhousehold incomes in Australia. There have been hopeful signs in New South Wales and Western Australia,
but there is much more to be done.
48

Paul Cheshire & Stephan Sheppard (2006), "The Introduction of price signals into land-use planning decision making: aproposal," London School of Economics, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/568/1/Price_Signals_Planning_DecisionsSept6.pdf
49
John Muellbauer (2005), "Property Taxation and the Economy after the Barker Review," The Economic Journal, 115 (March),
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.8037&rep=rep1&type=pdf

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

26

The greatest price is paid by young households. As The Guardian put it, the biggest burden is " The increase in
prices across the board – but especially at the lower to median level – means that for many young people thegreat Australian dream of home ownership will forever remain a dream."

Canada: Until recently, Canada had favorable housing affordability. The exception was Vancouver, where

housing affordability has deteriorated markedly for decades under its strong urban containment policies. The
Royal Bank of Canada reports that detached housing, which is preferred in Canada, now requires more than
80 percent of the median household income for mortgage payments in the Vancouver area. This is more than
2.5 times the 32 percent guideline of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for mortgage eligibility.
The future for the household standard of living in Canada could be grim. In recent years, the province ofOntario has adopted strong urban containment policies to
The Royal Bank of Canada reports
apply to the Toronto metropolitan area. House prices havethat detached housing, which isrisen well above incomes, consistent with expectations (andpreferredin Canada, now requires
the principles of economics). Montréal has adopted urban
containment policy that may be as strict as those in Vancouver
more than 80 percent of the medianand Toronto. Similar policies have also been adopted inhousehold income for mortgage
Calgary. Montréal and Calgary have also experienced
payments in the Vancouver area.
substantial increases in house prices relative to incomes.
Without reform, Median Multiples in Toronto, Montréal, and Calgary could trend a housing affordability
crisis approaching that of Vancouver, the second most unaffordable metropolitan area (after Hong Kong) inthis year’s Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Meanwhile, with virtually no political prospectof land use liberalization in Vancouver, housing affordability could deteriorate even further there.
housing accords have been reached with the city of Auckland that will loosen regulation for new greenfield
and infill housing. Hong Kong: Hong Kong's unprecedented housing unaffordability has been the focus ofpolitical demonstrations, as well as attention by the government. In his 2014 annual policy address Chief
Executive C. Y. Leung noted that: "a housing supply shortage is the major cause of the upsurge in property
and rental prices." He committed the government to increasing land supply and measures that would curb
property speculation, which like higher house prices typifies urban containment markets. The challenges may
be overwhelming, but at least Hong Kong's political leadership understands the economics and recognizes
the problem, unlike in the urban containment markets of Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United States.

Ireland: Probably no geography covered in the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey suffered
more from the housing bust than Ireland.

Yet, important policy reforms that could prevent a recurrence remain to be implemented. As economist Colm
McCarthy of University College Dublin has indicated, the rising
The reforms that Colm McCarthy
demand for housing in the Dublin area could lead to substantial
house price escalation unless the overly restrictive land use
recommends may be crucial, toregulations are reformed. McCarthy has called for repeal of
avoiding a repeat of Ireland's
Ireland's urban containment land use policies that were fashioned
recent financial distress.
after the British Town and Country Planning Act of 1947.
Ireland's challenges could be great. The national statistics bureau, the Central Office of Statistics (CSO)
recently projected that the Dublin metropolitan area will experience population growth of 22 percent between

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)27

2011 and 2031. The high projected population growth seems could lead to house price increases that could
equal those of the last decade. The reforms that Colm McCarthy recommends may be crucial, to avoiding a
repeat of Ireland's recent financial distress.

New Zealand: The progress noted in last year's Demographia Survey continues. The central government has

undertaken significant reforms of land markets, which were outlined by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English in
his introduction to the 9th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. As a result of recently
enacted legislation, housing accords have been reached with the city of Auckland that will loosen regulation
for new greenfield and infill housing. Cooperation between the central government and local authorities isleading to important expansion of the land supply on the fringes of other major centers as well.

United Kingdom: There is considerable discussion of the means bywhich to improve housing affordability in the United Kingdom,which was the cradle of restrictive land-use regulation beginningwith the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947.

... housing accords have beenreached with the city of Aucklandthat will loosen regulation for
new greenfield and infill housing.

The Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition government has
proposed liberalization of the regulations. Planning Minister Nick Boles Minister Boles called Britain's lack of
housing affordability "the biggest social justice crisis we have (see last year's Demographia Survey).
The Labour Party opposition has promised that, if elected in 2015, steps will be taken to increase land supply
and housing affordability, so that "working people and their children" have the "decent homes they deserve."
Noting the heightened level of public discourse on Britain's planning laws, The Economist commented:"Building on fields in a country that is as crowded as
England will always rile some people, however welldesigned the system. But the alternative is worse: a nation ofrenters and rentiers, where only the rich own houses."

The British electorate may finallywitness a land-use policy debatethat would have been overdue
four decades ago.

The British electorate may finally witness a land-use policy debate that would have been overdue four decades
ago.

United States: The United States continues to be home to some of the most productive land use regulationin the world, which has resulted in its superior housing affordability (for example, Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth,
Houston and Indianapolis). The United States is also home to some of the most counter-productive land use
regulation,50 which is evidenced by severely unaffordable housing(for example, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego,
William Fischel of Dartmouth
New York and soon-to-be major metropolitan area, Honolulu51).
University cites the housing
There are both hopeful and worrisome signs. In a positive
development, Florida repealed its statewide urban containment
legislation and housing affordability has remained near historic
norms, except in Miami where strict local urban containment
regulations continue. Yet, there is a continuing effort by the urban
50
51

affordability losses from urban
containment policies in the
United Kingdom and Korea andnotes that: "American planners
seem unaware of this evidence.”

Because of its negative effect on housing affordability, which leads to a lower standard of living and greater poverty.
Honolulu could exceed 1,000,000 in population by 2015, at the current growth rate.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)28

planning community, with support from the federal government, to extend urban containment policy to othermetropolitan areas.
At a minimum, the problem in the United States results from a failure to sufficiently consider economics.
William Fischel of Dartmouth University cites the housing affordability losses from urban containment
policies in the United Kingdom and Korea and notes that: "American planners seem unaware of thisevidence.” 52
6. PLANNING FOR PEOPLEM

uch of the current justification for urban containment policy rests on an expectation of its potential
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, urban containment policy is not an effective
strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Its strategies provide minimal reductions, atbest, and a costs much greater than other alternatives.
Spending more than necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inherently anti-economic and would
lead to lower standards of living and greater poverty. The was emphasized by the European Conference ofMinisters of Transport:"It is important to achieve the required emissions reductions at the lowest overall cost to avoid
damaging welfare and economic growth."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that sufficient greenhouse gas emissions
reductions can be achieved for a range of from $20 to $50 per tonne. Urban containment strategies costmuch more. Figures of $1,000 per tonne have been estimated for mass transit approaches, while house priceincreases could escalate the cost to many times that. A US report by McKinsey and the Conference
Board concluded that substantial and cost effective GHG emission reductions were possible, “while
maintaining comparable levels of consumer utility,” which was defined as “no change in thermostat settings
or appliance use, no downsizing of vehicles, home or commercial space and traveling the same mileage.” Inother words, there is no need to interfere with people's lives or preferences
The Role of Cities
Throughout history, people have moved to cities for better lives, responding to the much greater and more
focused economic opportunities they provided. In 1800 there was only one urban area with more than
1,000,000 residents (Beijing) and the world's urban population was on the order of 10 percent. By 1900 there
were 16 urban areas with more than 1,000,000 residents. Now there are approximately 475 urban areas withmore than 1,000,000 population, and the world is more than one-half urban. The largest urban area, TokyoYokohama, is six times as large as 1900 London, which was the largest at that time.
Cities, in combination with the technological and transport advances of the last two centuries have facilitatedunparalleled affluence in many nations and have replaced universal poverty with far better lives virtually
everywhere. Cities have grown because of the economic aspirations that they are able to turn into reality.

52

William A. Fischel, Comment on “The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic
Evidence,” in Anthony Downs, editor (2004), Growth Management and Affordable Housing: Do They Conflict?, Brookings
Institution Press,

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)29

Former World Bank principal urban planner Alain Bertaud (2004) noted that: Large labor markets are the only
raison d’être of large cities.53
Most governments place the highest priority on achieving a higher standard of living and less poverty.54
Yet, these principal objectives are subverted by urban containment policy, which places the urban form how
people travel over the betterment of people. Urban planning should be refocused on more fundamental
purposes.

53

Alain Bertaud, "The Spatial Organization of Cities: Deliberate Outcome or Unforeseen Consequence?"
World Development Report 2003: Dynamic Development in a Sustainable World: Background Paper, http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/13/000265513_20040213120824/Rendered/INDEX/
wdr27864.txt
54
Wendell Cox (2012), Toward More Prosperous Cities, http://demographia.com/towardmoreprosperous.pdf.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

30

SCHEDULE 1
MAJOR MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable(Markets over 1,000,000 Population)Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
18
27
36
36
41
41
41
41
41
41
58
68
68
80
96
96
117
117
117
117
130
130
130
142
142
142
142
142
142
161
161
161
161
171
171
171
184
184
184
198
198
211
211
224

Major
Market
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
12
12
14
15
15
17
17
17
17
21
21
21
24
24
24
24
24
24
30
30
30
30
34
34
34
37
37
37
40
40
42
42
44

National
Rank
17
24
32
32
36
36
36
36
36
36
52
61
61
72
85
85
105
105
105
105
117
117
117
1
129
129
129
129
129
144
144
144
144
5
152
152
15
162
162
18
173
3
181
4

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Japan
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
IrelandU.S.
U.S.
CanadaU.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.K.
U.S.
U.K.

Metropolitan Market
Pittsburgh, PA
Detroit, MI
Grand Rapids
Rochester, NY
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland, OH
Indianapolis. IN
St. Louis,, MO-IL
Columbus, OH
Kansas City, MO-KSLouisville, KY-IN
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
Houston, TX
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh, NC
San Antonio, TXCharlotte, NC-SC
Nashville, TN
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto*
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
Hartford, CT
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
Birmingham, AL
Las Vegas, NV
New Orleans. LA
Orlando, FL
DublinAustin, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Ottawa ON-QC
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Salt Lake City, UT
Edmonton, AB
Baltimore, MD
Leeds & West Yorkshire
Milwaukee, WI
Glasgow

MedianMultiple*
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.2

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$116,000$130,000$135,700$132,100$152,300$137,100$142,100$127,000$143,500$143,700$152,100$162,300$145,100$137,500$181,300$208,000$186,600$161,100$202,700$175,000$183,800$177,300$151,800¥18,380,000$209,000$238,500$170,600$205,000$200,500$173,700$181,900$162,500$167,800€215,000$225,300$191,700$303,900$231,600$235,000$336,000$266,500£130,000$211,800£117,400

MedianHouseholdIncome$51,400$51,200$51,600$51,600$55,600$51,200$53,400$47,800$52,800$53,200$54,700$55,500$49,800$46,500$58,000$67,500$57,000$49,500$61,400$52,400$53,500$52,500$45,200¥5,200,000$60,400$68,000$49,000$57,800$57,000$47,600$50,500$45,200$46,900€58,000$60,500$52,300$79,400$61,200$61,200$87,200$68,200£32,700$53,600£28,200

31

SCHEDULE 1
MAJOR MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable(Markets over 1,000,000 Population)Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Major
Affordability
MarketNational
Rank
Rank
Rank
232
45
28
232
45
5
232
45
5
240
48
2
240
48
198
240
48
198
240
48
198
248
52
8
257
53
9
257
53
9
257
53
9
257
53
209
264
57
29
264
57
211
268
59
13
268
59
13
268
59
212
285
62
1
285
62
19
289
64
21
289
64
214
289
64
214
297
67
23
297
67
217
312
69
23
319
70
25
323
71
33
323
71
222
327
73
28
328
74
29
336
75
31
339
76
32
344
77
229
346
78
230
347
79
8
351
80
38
353
81
232
354
82
39
356
83
234
359
84
35
360
85
1
Financial data in local currency.
*Average Multiple (Japan)

NationCanada
U.K.
U.K.
Japan
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
Singapore
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
CanadaU.S.
Australia
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
N.Z.
Australia
U.S.
Australia
U.S.
CanadaChina SAR

Metropolitan Market
Calgary, AB
Derby & Derbyshire
Nottingham & Nottinghamshire
Tokyo-Yokohama*
Providence, RI-MA
Sacramento, CA
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WVBlackpool & Lancashire
Hull & Humber
Manchester & Greater Manchester
Sheffield & South Yorkshire
Denver, CO
Montreal, QC
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
Birmingham & West Midlands
Newcastle & Tyneside
Portland, OR-WA
Singapore
Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire
Liverpool & Merseyside
Miami, FL
Seattle, WA
Bristol-Bath
Boston, MA-NH
Brisbane, QLD
Perth, WA
Toronto, ON
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Adelaide, SA
London Exurbs (E & SE England)
Plymouth & Devon
London (GLA)
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
Auckland
Melbourne, VIC
San Jose, CA
Sydney, NSW
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Vancouver, BC
Hong KongMedianMultiple*
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.0
7.3
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.4
8.7
9.0
9.2
10.3
14.9

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$392,400£136,000£126,300¥28,040,000$241,400$255,900$392,500£125,000£133,800£128,000£120,000$286,900$264,000$249,100£134,100£128,200$276,200$438,000£141,000£125,000$252,200$354,700£192,000$393,700$442,100$508,000$453,900$405,400$392,000£225,000£183,600£326,000$448,900$485,000$561,700$595,500$805,000$722,700$705,000$670,300$4,024,000

MedianHouseholdIncome$91,800£31,300£29,700¥6,360,000$55,300$57,900$89,900£27,700£29,300£28,100£25,900$62,600$56,300$52,700£28,000£26,500$58,000$86,000£27,500£23,500$47,500$66,900£35,600$73,100$75,900$84,800$73,100$65,200$61,800£34,900£26,300£44,800$58,300$61,500$70,600$70,800$92,400$80,500$76,300$65,000$270,00032SCHEDULE 2
MAJOR MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHY (Over 1,000,000 Population)Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
327
312
351
319
354
232
198
264
184
323
359
360
171
142
240
347
285
268
248
297
232
224
257
211
289
339
328
257
268
232
336
257
285
41
171
198
161
297
41
130
142
41
41

Major
Market
Rank
73
69
80
70
82
45
40
57
37
71
84
85
34
24
48
79
62
59
52
67
45
44
53
42
64
76
74
53
59
45
75
53
62
5
34
40
30
67
5
21
24
5
5

National
Rank
28
23
38
25
39
28
18
29
15
33
35
1
5
1
2
8
1
13
8
23
5
4
9
3
21
32
29
9
13
5
31
9
19
36
152
173
144
217
36
117
129
36
36

NationAustralia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
CanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaChina SAR
Ireland
Japan
Japan
N.Z.
Singapore
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Adelaide, SA
Brisbane, QLD
Melbourne, VIC
Perth, WA
Sydney, NSW
Calgary, AB
Edmonton, AB
Montreal, QC
Ottawa ON-QC
Toronto, ON
Vancouver, BC
Hong Kong
DublinOsaka-Kobe-Kyoto*
Tokyo-Yokohama*
AucklandSingapore
Birmingham & West Midlands
Blackpool & Lancashire
Bristol-BathDerby & Derbyshire
Glasgow
Hull & Humber
Leeds & West Yorkshire
Liverpool & Merseyside
London (GLA)
London Exurbs (E & SE England)
Manchester & Greater Manchester
Newcastle & Tyneside
Nottingham & Nottinghamshire
Plymouth & Devon
Sheffield & South Yorkshire
Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire
Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Boston, MA-NH
Buffalo, NY
Charlotte, NC-SC
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland, OH

MedianMultiple*
6.3
5.8
8.4
6.0
9.0
4.3
3.9
4.7
3.8
6.2
10.3
14.9
3.7
3.5
4.4
8.0
5.1
4.8
4.5
5.4
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.0
5.3
7.3
6.4
4.6
4.8
4.3
7.0
4.6
5.1
2.7
3.7
3.9
3.6
5.4
2.7
3.4
3.5
2.7
2.7

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$392,000$442,100$595,500$508,000$722,700$392,400$336,000$264,000$303,900$453,900$670,300$4,024,000€215,000¥18,380,000¥28,040,000$561,700$438,000£134,100£125,000£192,000£136,000£117,400£133,800£130,000£125,000£326,000£225,000£128,000£128,200£126,300£183,600£120,000£141,000$152,300$225,300$266,500$173,700$393,700$137,100$183,800$209,000$142,100$127,000MedianHouseholdIncome$61,800$75,900$70,800$84,800$80,500$91,800$87,200$56,300$79,400$73,100$65,000$270,000€58,000¥5,200,000¥6,360,000$70,600$86,000£28,000£27,700£35,600£31,300£28,200£29,300£32,700£23,500£44,800£34,900£28,100£26,500£29,700£26,300£25,900£27,500$55,600$60,500$68,200$47,600$73,100$51,200$53,500$60,400$53,400$47,800

33

SCHEDULE 2
MAJOR MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHY (Over 1,000,000 Population)Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Major
Affordability
MarketNational
Rank
Rank
Rank
58
11
52
96
15
85
257
53
209
27
2
24
36
3
32
142
24
129
117
17
105
41
5
36
142
24
129
68
12
61
161
30
144
344
77
229
68
12
61
80
14
72
289
64
214
211
42
181
96
15
85
130
21
117
161
30
144
323
71
222
117
17
105
161
30
144
184
37
162
171
34
152
18
1
17
268
59
212
240
48
198
117
17
105
142
24
129
264
57
211
36
3
32
240
48
198
184
37
162
117
17
105
346
78
230
356
83
234
353
81
232
289
64
214
41
5
36
130
21
117
142
24
129
240
48
198
Financial data in local currency.
*Average Multiple (Japan)

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Columbus, OH
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Grand Rapids
Hartford, CT
Houston, TX
Indianapolis. IN
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO-KS
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CALouisville, KY-IN
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Miami, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
Nashville, TN
New Orleans. LA
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Oklahoma City, OK
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Portland, OR-WA
Providence, RI-MA
Raleigh, NC
Richmond, VA
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
Rochester, NY
Sacramento, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis,, MO-IL
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WVMedianMultiple*
2.8
3.1
4.6
2.5
2.6
3.5
3.3
2.7
3.5
2.9
3.6
7.7
2.9
3.0
5.3
4.0
3.1
3.4
3.6
6.2
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.7
2.3
4.8
4.4
3.3
3.5
4.7
2.6
4.4
3.8
3.3
7.9
9.2
8.7
5.3
2.7
3.4
3.5
4.4

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$152,100$181,300$286,900$130,000$135,700$238,500$186,600$143,500$170,600$162,300$181,900$448,900$145,100$137,500$252,200$211,800$208,000$177,300$162,500$405,400$161,100$167,800$231,600$191,700$116,000$276,200$241,400$202,700$205,000$249,100$132,100$255,900$235,000$175,000$485,000$705,000$805,000$354,700$143,700$151,800$200,500$392,500

MedianHouseholdIncome$54,700$58,000$62,600$51,200$51,600$68,000$57,000$52,800$49,000$55,500$50,500$58,300$49,800$46,500$47,500$53,600$67,500$52,500$45,200$65,200$49,500$46,900$61,200$52,300$51,400$58,000$55,300$61,400$57,800$52,700$51,600$57,900$61,200$52,400$61,500$76,300$92,400$66,900$53,200$45,200$57,000$89,900

34

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
18
18
18
18
18
23
23
23
23
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
36
36
36
36
36
41

Major
Market
Rank

1

2

3
3

National
Rank
1
1
3
1
4
4
4
4
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
17
17
17
17
2
21
21
21
2
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
3
32
32
32
32
4

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ireland
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ireland
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaMetropolitan Market
Rockford, IL
Utica, NY
Warner Robbins, GA
Waterford
Appleton, WI
Decatur, IL
Lansing, MI
Toledo, OH
Springfield, IL
Youngstown, OH-PA
Augusta, GA
Davenport-Moline, IA-IL
Flint, MI
Kankakee, IL
Peoria, IL
Saginaw, MI
Topeka, KS
Moncton, NB
Canton, OH
Ft. Wayne, IN
Lansing, MI
Pittsburgh, PA
GalwayBinghamton, NY
Dayton, OH
South Bend, IN
Saint John, NB
Akron, OH
Bloomington, IL
Detroit, MI
Elmira, NY
Erie, PA
Syracuse, NY
Waterloo, IA
Wichita, KS
Fredericton, NB
Elkhart, IN
Grand Rapids
Harrisburg, PA
Rochester, NY
Windsor, ON

MedianMultiple*
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$88,900$80,000$103,900€92,500$124,600$91,000$100,000$87,500$120,600$85,000$99,800$114,300$92,000$115,200$120,000$90,000$106,900$141,800$107,000$116,700$112,700$116,000€119,600$117,500$111,100$108,600$154,400$125,300$156,500$130,000$116,100$119,600$130,700$130,800$125,600$165,700$122,000$135,700$146,000$132,100$160,200

MedianHouseholdIncome$51,600$47,500$55,500€46,900$61,300$45,400$49,500$44,100$56,700$41,400$45,600$52,600$41,100$52,700$54,500$41,100$49,400$62,300$46,000$50,200$49,500$51,400€50,400$49,000$46,400$45,600$62,200$50,700$63,300$51,200$46,800$47,400$52,200$51,700$49,400$64,600$46,200$51,600$55,800$51,600$60,200

35

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

Major
Market
Rank
5
5
5
5

5

5

11

12
12

National
Rank
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
3
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
4
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
5
5
5
72
72
72
72
72
72

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ireland
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Ireland
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanadaCanada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Atlanta, GA
Buffalo, NY
Cedar Rapids, IA
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland, OH
Decatur, AL
Duluth, MN
Green Bay, WI
Houma, LA
Indianapolis. IN
Ocala, FLOmaha, NE-IA
Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL
Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA
St. Louis,, MO-IL
York, PA
Cork
Columbus, GA-AL
Columbus, OH
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
Kalamazoo, MI
Killeen , TX
Lincoln, NE
Little Rock, AR
Mobile, AL
Salisbury, MD
Limerick
Charleston, WV
Clarksville, TN
Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL
Des Moines, IA
Hickory, NC
Kansas City, MO-KS
Lakeland, FLLouisville, KY-IN
McAllen, TX
Reading, PA
Springfield, MOCharlottetown, PEI
Thunder Bay, ON
Trois-Rivieres, QC
Champaign-Urbana, IL
Columbia, SC
Cumberland, MD-WVGlens Falls, NY
Greenville, NC
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WVMedianMultiple*
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$152,300$137,100$160,100$142,100$127,000$114,900$130,000$138,400$132,300$143,500$103,600$149,500$125,800$117,000$143,700$155,800€144,000$122,200$152,100$116,800$127,000$138,000$144,900$138,700$114,800$140,000€144,000$140,200$132,500$120,400$177,600$109,500$162,300$123,800$145,100$100,000$153,700$123,500$187,300$187,500$145,500$147,900$148,100$109,900$162,400$115,800$158,700

MedianHouseholdIncome$55,600$51,200$58,300$53,400$47,800$42,900$47,700$51,700$49,800$52,800$37,800$55,200$47,000$43,700$53,200$56,700€50,900$43,800$54,700$42,000$45,200$49,500$51,600$48,700$40,400$50,300€50,000$48,500$45,200$40,900$60,300$38,100$55,500$42,100$49,800$34,400$53,000$43,100$63,200$61,800$48,700$48,500$49,700$36,300$54,400$38,500$52,300

36

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
130
130
130
130
130
130

Major
Market
Rank
14

15
15

17
17
17
17

21

National
Rank
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
8
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
9
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
117
117
117
117
117
117

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Lancaster, PA
Lexington, KY
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Roanoke, VA
Sioux Falls, SD
Tulsa, OK
Winston-Salem, NC
Saguenay, QC
Abilene, TX
Amarillo, TX
Beaumont, TX
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Fargo, ND-MN
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WIMontgomery, AL
Ogden, UT
Pensacola, FL
Yuma, AZ
Corpus Christi, TX
Fayetteville, AR-MO
Florence, SC
Greensboro-High Point, NC
Huntsville, AL
Kingston, NY
Norwich-New London, CT
Punta Gorda, FL
Spartanburg, SC
Sudbury, ON
Albany-Schenectady, NY
Ann Arbor, MI
Brownsville, TX
El Centro, CA
Houston, TX
Kennewick-Richland, WA
Lafayette, LA
Oklahoma City, OK
Port St. Lucie, FL
Raleigh, NC
San Antonio, TX
Tyler, TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Bismarck, ND
Boise City, ID
Charlotte, NC-SC
Dover, DE
Fayetteville, NC

MedianMultiple*
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$170,000$147,000$137,500$145,000$158,100$146,500$131,000$173,000$139,000$145,900$139,200$139,500$181,300$165,200$208,000$141,600$198,000$159,800$125,000$160,000$147,100$122,700$136,100$178,500$187,000$215,300$147,900$133,900$216,300$205,800$190,000$103,000$135,000$186,600$189,600$157,000$161,100$143,900$202,700$175,000$157,000$173,200$217,500$168,400$183,800$185,400$154,700

MedianHouseholdIncome$55,800$48,800$46,500$47,900$52,700$48,900$43,000$56,100$44,200$47,300$44,200$44,300$58,000$52,500$67,500$45,500$63,000$50,800$40,200$50,000$46,500$38,900$42,500$55,600$58,600$67,800$46,100$41,600$64,900$61,800$57,400$31,500$41,000$57,000$58,300$47,700$49,500$43,100$61,400$52,400$47,200$51,200$63,200$49,900$53,500$53,900$45,700

37

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
130
130
130
130
130
130
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171

Major
Market
Rank

21
21
24

24

24
24

24
24

30

30
30
30

34
34

34

National
Rank
117
117
117
117
117
117
10
10
1
1
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
12
2
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
13
13
5
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanada
Japan
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanadaIreland
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Gainesville, GA
Knoxville, TN
Longview, TX
Manchester-Nashua, NH
Nashville, TN
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
Kingston, ON
St. Catherines-Niagara, ON
Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto*
Falkirk
Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ
Athens, GA
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
Dover, DE
El Paso, TX
Hartford, CT
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Palm Coast, FL
Panama City, FL
Poughkeepsie, NY
Richmond, VA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
Waco, TX
Regina, SK
BelfastBirmingham, AL
Columbia, MO
Greeley, CO
Lake Havasu City, AZ
Las Vegas, NV
New Orleans. LA
Orlando, FL
Wilmington, NC
Halifax, NS
London, ON
DublinAustin, TX
Crestview-Fort Walton Beach, FL
Durham, NC
Greenville, SC
Hanford, CA
Merced, CA
Olympia, WA
Phoenix, AZ

MedianMultiple*
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$173,000$152,900$145,800$241,800$177,300$151,800$231,800$210,800¥18,380,000£98,000$197,400$137,200$164,500$209,000$187,000$143,600$238,500$153,300$170,600$151,100$164,500$238,000$205,000$200,500$143,000$286,600£104,400$173,700$157,400$205,000$125,000$181,900$162,500$167,800$185,300$243,300$222,100€215,000$225,300$196,800$191,600$165,500$175,300$165,800$220,000$191,700

MedianHouseholdIncome$50,700$45,600$43,300$70,400$52,500$45,200$66,100$60,600¥5,200,000£27,900$56,800$38,700$47,100$60,400$53,900$41,100$68,000$43,400$49,000$43,700$46,900$67,900$57,800$57,000$41,400$79,000£29,200$47,600$44,000$56,400$35,100$50,500$45,200$46,900$50,900$65,700$60,700€58,000$60,500$53,800$51,200$44,500$46,800$44,400$59,300$52,300

38

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
171
171
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
211
211
211
211
211
211
211
218
218
218
218
218
218
224
224
224
224
224

Major
Market
Rank

37

37
37

40

40

42
42

44

National
Rank
152
152
15
15
15
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
18
18
18
18
18
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
23
23
3
181
181
181
181
1
25
25
185
185
185
2
27
4
188
188

NationU.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanadaCanada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaCanada
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
CanadaCanada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
Canada
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Spokane, WA
Yakima, WA
Brantford, ON
Ottawa ON-QC
St. John's, NL
Albuquerque, NM
Bremerton, WA
Farmington, NM
Kingston, NY
Madison, WI
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Salt Lake City, UT
Shreveport, LA
Springfield, MA
Tucson, AZ
Worcester, MA
Edmonton, AB
Guelph, ON
Kitchener, ON
Quebec, QC
Winnipeg, MB
Anchorage, AK
Baltimore, MD
Colorado Springs, CO
Laredo, TX
Prescott, AZ
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Visalia, CA
Saskatoon, SK
Sherbrooke, QC
Leeds & West YorkshireCollege Station, TX
Gainesville, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Salem, OR
Karratha, WA
Barrie, ON
Peterborough, ON
New Haven, CT
Pittsfield, MA
Provo, UT
Gladstone, QLD
Oshawa, ON
Glasgow
Atlantic City, NJ
Bakersfield, CA

MedianMultiple*
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$181,600$164,100$237,100$303,900$281,000$180,700$230,000$178,300$220,700$229,200$231,600$235,000$170,500$201,400$172,400$241,800$336,000$288,800$282,700$231,900$244,700$283,000$266,500$222,100$145,800$175,000$160,300$176,500$159,700$304,600$195,300£130,000$166,000$167,800$211,800$184,900$679,000$299,000$247,300$247,800$194,200$241,000$400,000$335,300£117,400$216,700$196,500

MedianHouseholdIncome$48,500$44,800$62,000$79,400$74,100$47,600$60,200$47,300$58,600$60,000$61,200$61,200$44,900$52,500$45,600$63,700$87,200$74,400$71,600$60,000$63,400$72,800$68,200$56,400$37,300$44,900$41,200$45,600$41,100$75,700$49,100£32,700$41,100$42,000$53,600$46,500$166,800$73,500$60,600$60,400$47,400$59,300$94,200$79,800£28,200$52,100$46,800

39

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
224
224
224
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
264
264
264
264
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268

Major
Market
Rank

45
45
45

48

48
48
48

52

53
53
53
53
57
57

59
59

National
Rank
188
188
188
28
5
5
193
193
193
193
193
2
7
198
198
198
198
198
198
3
3
1
8
204
204
204
204
204
5
9
9
9
9
209
209
6
29
29
211
7
7
7
2
13
13
13
13

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Japan
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
N.Z.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
CanadaCanadaU.S.
Australia
Australia
Australia
N.Z.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

Metropolitan Market
Madera, CA
Modesto, CA
Yuba City, CA
Calgary, AB
Derby & Derbyshire
Nottingham & Nottinghamshire
Fort Collins, CO
Fresno, CA
Portland, ME
Redding, CA
Trenton, NJ
Tokyo-Yokohama*DundeeAsheville, NC
Myrtle Beach, SC
Providence, RI-MA
Sacramento, CA
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
Mildura, VIC
Townsville, QLD
Palmerston North-Manawatu
Blackpool & Lancashire
Burlington, VT
Charleston, SC
Reno-Sparks, NV
Stockton, CA
Vallejo, CA
Shepparton, VIC
Edinburgh
Hull & Humber
Manchester & Greater Manchester
Sheffield & South Yorkshire
Bellingham, WA
Denver, CO
Launceston, TAS
Hamilton, ON
Montreal, QC
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
Alice Springs, NT
Rockhampton, QLD
Tamworth, NSW
Hamilton-Waikato
Birmingham & West Midlands
Middlesborough & Durham
Newcastle & Tyneside
Northampton & Northamptonshire

MedianMultiple*
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$178,600$197,300$193,100$392,400£136,000£126,300$247,000$184,400$236,000$198,500$298,900¥28,040,000£122,800$195,000$181,800$241,400$255,900$213,500$392,500$213,000$346,000$231,100£125,000$279,900$227,700$224,800$232,900$287,100$237,000£152,900£133,800£128,000£120,000$240,000$286,900$250,000$323,000$264,000$249,100$469,500$318,300$260,000$303,400£134,100£118,000£128,200£155,000MedianHouseholdIncome$42,800$47,300$46,500$91,800£31,300£29,700$56,900$42,400$54,700$46,300$69,300¥6,360,000£28,200$44,000$41,100$55,300$57,900$48,700$89,900$46,900$76,400$50,900£27,700$62,000$51,000$50,000$51,700$63,200$51,400£33,400£29,300£28,100£25,900$52,400$62,600$53,200$68,400$56,300$52,700$97,100$66,600$54,500$62,800£28,000£24,600£26,500£32,300

40

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
268
277
277
277
277
277
282
282
282
285
285
285
288
289
289
289
289
289
289
289
289
297
297
297
297
297
297
297
297
297
306
306
306
309
310
310
312
312
312
312
316
316
316
319
319
319
319

Major
Market
Rank
59

62
62

64
64
64

67
67

69

70

National
Rank
212
10
10
10
17
213
13
13
18
1
19
19
3
15
15
15
21
21
214
214
214
18
18
4
23
23
23
23
217
217
20
20
5
27
22
219
23
23
6
220
31
31
28
25
25
25
221

NationU.S.
Australia
Australia
Australia
U.K.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
U.K.
Singapore
U.K.
U.K.
N.Z.
Australia
Australia
Australia
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
N.Z.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
N.Z.
U.K.
Australia
U.S.
Australia
Australia
N.Z.
U.S.
CanadaCanadaU.K.
Australia
Australia
Australia
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Portland, OR-WA
Bunbury, WA
Mackay, QLD
Orange, NSW
PerthEugene, OR
Bathurst, NSW
Port Hedland, WA
Leicester & Leicestershire
Singapore
Newport
Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire
DunedinCanberra, ACT
Geraldton, WA
Wagga Wagga, NSW
Liverpool & Merseyside
Warwickshire
Miami, FL
Naples, FL
Seattle, WA
Hobart, TAS
Toowoomba, QLD
Napier-Hastings
Aberdeen
Bristol-BathSwansea
Warrington & Cheshire
Boston, MA-NH
Bridgeport, CT
Ballarat, VIC
Cairns, QLD
Wellington
Cardiff
Bundaberg, QLD
Barnstable Town, MA
Albury-Wodonga, NSW-VIC
Brisbane, QLD
Christchurch
Hilo, HI
Fraser Valley, BC
Kelowna, BC
Telford & Shropshire
Bendigo, VIC
Newcastle-Maitland, NSW
Perth, WA
Boulder, COMedianMultiple*
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$276,200$380,000$420,000$317,000£158,800$204,000$313,300$818,000£151,000$438,000£150,000£141,000$263,500$562,200$379,000$333,700£125,000£186,000$252,200$290,800$354,700$322,800$309,000$290,500£187,800£192,000£120,000£170,000$393,700$439,000$290,000$351,500$386,700£145,000$265,000$346,800$320,000$442,100$388,200$296,700$425,400$372,200£161,800$315,000$385,700$508,000$410,900

MedianHouseholdIncome$58,000$77,200$86,300$64,600£32,300$41,400$63,200$163,700£30,400$86,000£29,500£27,500$51,100$106,400$71,500$63,500£23,500£35,200$47,500$55,100$66,900$59,500$57,500$54,200£34,600£35,600£22,300£31,300$73,100$81,300$52,500$63,600$70,400£26,100$46,100$60,600$55,200$75,900$66,500$51,200$71,700$62,900£27,200$52,700$64,800$84,800$68,200

41

SCHEDULE 3
ALL MARKETS RANKED BY AFFORDABILITY: Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Major
Affordability
MarketNational
Rank
Rank
Rank
323
71
33
323
222
323
222
323
71
222
327
73
28
328
74
29
329
29
329
30
331
7
332
30
332
30
334
32
334
34
336
75
31
336
225
338
33
339
34
339
76
32
341
226
342
227
343
228
344
35
344
77
229
346
78
230
347
36
347
79
8
347
231
350
37
351
80
38
352
33
353
81
232
354
82
39
354
233
356
83
234
357
235
358
236
359
84
35
360
85
1
Financial data in local currency.
*Average Multiple (Japan)

NationCanada
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
U.K.
Australia
U.K.
N.Z.
Australia
Australia
Australia
CanadaU.K.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
U.K.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
U.S.
U.S.
Australia
N.Z.
U.S.
Australia
Australia
U.K.
U.S.
Australia
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
CanadaChina SAR

Metropolitan Market
Toronto, ON
Chico, CA
Eureka, CA
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Adelaide, SA
London Exurbs (E & SE England)
Darwin, NT
Swindon & Wiltshire
Taraunga-Western Bay of Plenty
Fraser Coast, QLD
Mandurah, WA
Wollongong, NSW
Victoria, BC
Plymouth & Devon
Salinas-Monterey, CA
Coff's Harbour, NSW
Geelong, VIC
London (GLA)
Napa, CASanta Rosa, CA
Oxnard, CAGold Coast, QLD
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
Sunshine Coast, QLD
AucklandSan Luis Obispo, CA
Port Macquarie, NSW
Melbourne, VIC
Bournemouth & Dorsett
San Jose, CA
Sydney, NSW
Santa Cruz, CA
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Honolulu, HI
Vancouver, BC
Hong KongMedianMultiple*
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.4
8.6
8.7
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.3
14.9

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$453,900$257,000$257,000$405,400$392,000£225,000$673,500£185,000$364,800$290,000$390,000$430,000$446,800£183,600$412,800$355,000$405,000£326,000$518,400$461,100$550,400$472,100$448,900$485,000$440,000$561,700$488,300$378,000$595,500£223,000$805,000$722,700$621,200$705,000$638,900$679,800$670,300$4,024,000

MedianHouseholdIncome$73,100$41,700$41,400$65,200$61,800£34,900$103,600£28,600$55,000$42,600$57,600$61,900$65,100£26,300$59,200$50,000$55,700£44,800$69,800$61,100$72,900$61,500$58,300$61,500$55,300$70,600$61,400$46,600$70,800£25,800$92,400$80,500$69,000$76,300$69,000$72,700$65,000$270,00042SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
327
312
268
306
282
319
312
277
310
306
289
338
329
332
339
289
224
344
297
218
264
277
332
351
248
319
277
319
282
350
268
257
347
354
268
297
248
289
334
218
184

Major
Market
Rank
73

69

80

70

82

National
Rank
28
23
7
20
13
25
23
10
22
20
15
33
29
30
34
15
2
35
18
1
6
10
30
38
3
25
10
25
13
37
7
5
36
39
7
18
3
15
32

NationAustralia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia

25
15

CanadaCanadaMetropolitan Market
Adelaide, SA
Albury-Wodonga, NSW-VIC
Alice Springs, NT
Ballarat, VIC
Bathurst, NSW
Bendigo, VIC
Brisbane, QLD
Bunbury, WA
Bundaberg, QLD
Cairns, QLD
Canberra, ACT
Coff's Harbour, NSW
Darwin, NT
Fraser Coast, QLD
Geelong, VIC
Geraldton, WA
Gladstone, QLD
Gold Coast, QLD
Hobart, TAS
Karratha, WA
Launceston, TAS
Mackay, QLD
Mandurah, WA
Melbourne, VIC
Mildura, VIC
Newcastle-Maitland, NSW
Orange, NSW
Perth, WA
Port Hedland, WAPort Macquarie, NSW
Rockhampton, QLD
Shepparton, VIC
Sunshine Coast, QLD
Sydney, NSW
Tamworth, NSW
Toowoomba, QLD
Townsville, QLD
Wagga Wagga, NSW
Wollongong, NSW
Median Market
fillerBarrie, ON
Brantford, ON

MedianMultiple*
6.3
5.8
4.8
5.5
5.0
6.0
5.8
4.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
7.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
5.3
4.2
7.7
5.4
4.1
4.7
4.9
6.8
8.4
4.5
6.0
4.9
6.0
5.0
8.1
4.8
4.6
8.0
9.0
4.8
5.4
4.5
5.3
6.9
5.5

Median Price$392,000$320,000$469,500$290,000$313,300$315,000$442,100$380,000$265,000$351,500$562,200$355,000$673,500$290,000$405,000$379,000$400,000$472,100$322,800$679,000$250,000$420,000$390,000$595,500$213,000$385,700$317,000$508,000$818,000$378,000$318,300$237,000$440,000$722,700$260,000$309,000$346,000$333,700$430,000MedianHouseholdIncome$61,800$55,200$97,100$52,500$63,200$52,700$75,900$77,200$46,100$63,600$106,400$50,000$103,600$42,600$55,700$71,500$94,200$61,500$59,500$166,800$53,200$86,300$57,600$70,800$46,900$64,800$64,600$84,800$163,700$46,600$66,600$51,400$55,300$80,500$54,500$57,500$76,400$63,500$61,900

4.1
3.8$299,000$237,100$73,500$62,000

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

43

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
232
80
198
316
36
198
171
264
316
142
198
171
18
264
224
184
218
198
161
96
27
211
211
142
184
117
80
323
80
359
334
41
198

Major
Market
Rank
45

360

85

58
171
23
68
4
240
142

40

57
37

71
84

34

48
24

National
Rank
28
5
18
31
3
18
13
29
31
10
18
13
1
29
27
15
25
18
12
8
2
23
23
10
15
9
5
33
5
35
34
4
18

NationCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanadaCanada1

China SAR

3
5
2
4
1

Ireland
Ireland
Ireland
Ireland
Ireland

2
1

Japan
Japan

Metropolitan Market
Calgary, AB
Charlottetown, PEI
Edmonton, AB
Fraser Valley, BC
Fredericton, NB
Guelph, ON
Halifax, NS
Hamilton, ON
Kelowna, BC
Kingston, ON
Kitchener, ON
London, ON
Moncton, NB
Montreal, QC
Oshawa, ON
Ottawa ON-QC
Peterborough, ON
Quebec, QC
Regina, SK
Saguenay, QC
Saint John, NB
Saskatoon, SK
Sherbrooke, QC
St. Catherines-Niagara, ON
St. John's, NL
Sudbury, ON
Thunder Bay, ON
Toronto, ON
Trois-Rivieres, QC
Vancouver, BC
Victoria, BC
Windsor, ON
Winnipeg, MB
Median Market
fillerHong Kong
fillerCork
DublinGalwayLimerick
Waterford
Median Market
fillerTokyo-Yokohama*
Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto*Median Market*

MedianMultiple*
4.3
3.0
3.9
5.9
2.6
3.9
3.7
4.7
5.9
3.5
3.9
3.7
2.3
4.7
4.2
3.8
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.8
3.3
3.0
6.2
3.0
10.3
6.9
2.7
3.9
3.9

Median Price$392,400$187,300$336,000$425,400$165,700$288,800$243,300$323,000$372,200$231,800$282,700$222,100$141,800$264,000$335,300$303,900$247,300$231,900$286,600$173,000$154,400$304,600$195,300$210,800$281,000$216,300$187,500$453,900$145,500$670,300$446,800$160,200$244,700

MedianHouseholdIncome$91,800$63,200$87,200$71,700$64,600$74,400$65,700$68,400$62,900$66,100$71,600$60,700$62,300$56,300$79,800$79,400$60,600$60,000$79,000$56,100$62,200$75,700$49,100$60,600$74,100$64,900$61,800$73,100$48,700$65,000$65,100$60,200$63,400

14.9$4,024,000$270,000

2.8
3.7
2.4
2.9
2.0
2.8

€144,000€215,000€119,600€144,000€92,500€50,900€58,000€50,400€50,000€46,900

4.4
3.5
4.0

¥28,040,000¥18,380,000¥6,360,000¥5,200,000

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

44

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank

Major
Market
Rank

347
312
288
268
297
248
331
306

79

8
6
3
2
4
1
7
5

N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.
N.Z.

285

62

1

Singapore

23
2
13
8
33
23
27
5
7
9
1
4
9
3
18
21
32
29
9
13
13
19
13
5
17
31
9
19
23
30
28
23
21

U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

297
161
268
248
352
297
309
232
240
257
142
224
257
211
282
289
339
328
257
268
268
285
268
232
277
336
257
285
297
329
316
297
289

59
52
67
45

44
53
42
64
76
74
53
59
45
75
53
62

National
Rank

NationMetropolitan Market
fillerAucklandChristchurch
Dunedin
Hamilton-Waikato
Napier-Hastings
Palmerston North-Manawatu
Taraunga-Western Bay of Plenty
Wellington
Median Market
fillerSingaporefillerAberdeen
BelfastBirmingham & West Midlands
Blackpool & Lancashire
Bournemouth & Dorsett
Bristol-BathCardiff
Derby & Derbyshire
DundeeEdinburgh
FalkirkGlasgow
Hull & Humber
Leeds & West Yorkshire
Leicester & Leicestershire
Liverpool & Merseyside
London (GLA)
London Exurbs (E & SE England)
Manchester & Greater Manchester
Middlesborough & Durham
Newcastle & Tyneside
NewportNorthampton & Northamptonshire
Nottingham & Nottinghamshire
Perth
Plymouth & Devon
Sheffield & South Yorkshire
Stoke on Trent & Staffordshire
Swansea
Swindon & Wiltshire
Telford & Shropshire
Warrington & Cheshire
Warwickshire
Median Market

Median PriceMedianHouseholdIncome

8.0
5.8
5.2
4.8
5.4
4.5
6.6
5.5
5.5

$561,700$388,200$263,500$303,400$290,500$231,100$364,800$386,700$70,600$66,500$51,100$62,800$54,200$50,900$55,000$70,400

5.1$438,000$86,000

5.4
3.6
4.8
4.5
8.6
5.4
5.6
4.3
4.4
4.6
3.5
4.2
4.6
4.0
5.0
5.3
7.3
6.4
4.6
4.8
4.8
5.1
4.8
4.3
4.9
7.0
4.6
5.1
5.4
6.5
5.9
5.4
5.3
4.9

£187,800£104,400£134,100£125,000£223,000£192,000£145,000£136,000£122,800£152,900£98,000£117,400£133,800£130,000£151,000£125,000£326,000£225,000£128,000£118,000£128,200£150,000£155,000£126,300£158,800£183,600£120,000£141,000£120,000£185,000£161,800£170,000£186,000£34,600£29,200£28,000£27,700£25,800£35,600£26,100£31,300£28,200£33,400£27,900£28,200£29,300£32,700£30,400£23,500£44,800£34,900£28,100£24,600£26,500£29,500£32,300£29,700£32,300£26,300£25,900£27,500£22,300£28,600£27,200£31,300£35,200

MedianMultiple*10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

45

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
96
27
117
184
142
96
198
117
4
240
142
41
224
11
171
224
198
310
130
96
257
23
161
130
27
130
297
319
184
297
117
41
248
18
142
41
80
248
68
130
96
142
323
41
68

Major
Market
Rank

5
34
40

30

67

5

21
24
5

National
Rank
85
24
105
162
129
85
173
105
4
198
129
36
188
10
152
188
173
219
117
85
209
21
144
117
24
117
217
221
162
217
105
36
204
17
129
36
72
204
61
117
85
129
222
36
61

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
fillerAbilene, TX
Akron, OH
Albany-Schenectady, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ
Amarillo, TX
Anchorage, AK
Ann Arbor, MIAppleton, WI
Asheville, NC
Athens, GA
Atlanta, GA
Atlantic City, NJ
Augusta, GA
Austin, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Baltimore, MD
Barnstable Town, MA
Baton Rouge, LA
Beaumont, TX
Bellingham, WA
Binghamton, NY
Birmingham, AL
Bismarck, ND
Bloomington, IL
Boise City, ID
Boston, MA-NH
Boulder, CO
Bremerton, WA
Bridgeport, CT
Brownsville, TX
Buffalo, NY
Burlington, VT
Canton, OH
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
Cedar Rapids, IAChampaign-Urbana, IL
Charleston, SC
Charleston, WVCharlotte, NC-SC
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
Chico, CA
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Clarksville, TN

MedianMultiple*

Median PriceMedianHouseholdIncome

3.1
2.5
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.1
3.9
3.3
2.0
4.4
3.5
2.7
4.2
2.2
3.7
4.2
3.9
5.7
3.4
3.1
4.6
2.4
3.6
3.4
2.5
3.4
5.4
6.0
3.8
5.4
3.3
2.7
4.5
2.3
3.5
2.7
3.0
4.5
2.9
3.4
3.1
3.5
6.2
2.7
2.9

$139,000$125,300$205,800$180,700$197,400$145,900$283,000$190,000$124,600$195,000$137,200$152,300$216,700$99,800$225,300$196,500$266,500$346,800$173,200$139,200$240,000$117,500$173,700$217,500$156,500$168,400$393,700$410,900$230,000$439,000$103,000$137,100$279,900$107,000$164,500$160,100$147,900$227,700$140,200$183,800$139,500$209,000$257,000$142,100$132,500$44,200$50,700$61,800$47,600$56,800$47,300$72,800$57,400$61,300$44,000$38,700$55,600$52,100$45,600$60,500$46,800$68,200$60,600$51,200$44,200$52,400$49,000$47,600$63,200$63,300$49,900$73,100$68,200$60,200$81,300$31,500$51,200$62,000$46,000$47,100$58,300$48,500$51,000$48,500$53,500$44,300$60,400$41,700$53,400$45,200

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

46

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
41
211
198
161
80
58
58
108
171
80
96
11
23
41
4
68
257
68
27
142
130
41
171
117
142
36
27
27
277
323
96
184
108
130
11
108
232
232
18
211
130
80
36
161
41
108
80

Major
Market
Rank
5

11

15

53
2

3

National
Rank
36
181
173
144
72
52
52
96
152
72
85
10
21
36
4
61
209
61
24
129
117
36
152
105
129
32
24
24
213
222
85
162
96
117
10
96
193
193
17
181
117
72
32
144
36
96
72

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Cleveland, OH
College Station, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
Columbia, MO
Columbia, SC
Columbus, GA-AL
Columbus, OH
Corpus Christi, TX
Crestview-Fort Walton Beach, FL
Cumberland, MD-WV
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Davenport-Moline, IA-IL
Dayton, OH
Decatur, AL
Decatur, IL
Deltona-Daytona Beach, FL
Denver, CO
Des Moines, IA
Detroit, MI
Dover, DE
Dover, DE
Duluth, MN
Durham, NC
El Centro, CA
El Paso, TX
Elkhart, IN
Elmira, NY
Erie, PA
Eugene, OR
Eureka, CA
Fargo, ND-MN
Farmington, NM
Fayetteville, AR-MO
Fayetteville, NC
Flint, MI
Florence, SC
Fort Collins, CO
Fresno, CA
Ft. Wayne, IN
Gainesville, FL
Gainesville, GA
Glens Falls, NY
Grand Rapids
Greeley, COGreen Bay, WIGreensboro-High Point, NC
Greenville, NC

MedianMultiple*
2.7
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.2
3.7
3.0
3.1
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.0
2.9
4.6
2.9
2.5
3.5
3.4
2.7
3.7
3.3
3.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
4.9
6.2
3.1
3.8
3.2
3.4
2.2
3.2
4.3
4.3
2.3
4.0
3.4
3.0
2.6
3.6
2.7
3.2
3.0

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$127,000$166,000$222,100$157,400$148,100$122,200$152,100$160,000$196,800$109,900$181,300$114,300$111,100$114,900$91,000$120,400$286,900$177,600$130,000$187,000$185,400$130,000$191,600$135,000$143,600$122,000$116,100$119,600$204,000$257,000$165,200$178,300$147,100$154,700$92,000$122,700$247,000$184,400$116,700$167,800$173,000$162,400$135,700$205,000$138,400$136,100$115,800

MedianHouseholdIncome$47,800$41,100$56,400$44,000$49,700$43,800$54,700$50,000$53,800$36,300$58,000$52,600$46,400$42,900$45,400$40,900$62,600$60,300$51,200$53,900$53,900$47,700$51,200$41,000$41,100$46,200$46,800$47,400$41,400$41,400$52,500$47,300$46,500$45,700$41,100$38,900$56,900$42,400$50,200$42,000$50,700$54,400$51,600$56,400$51,700$42,500$38,50047

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
171
58
80
171
36
142
68
312
358
41
117
108
41
142
142
58
11
68
117
58
184
108
130
117
161
68
80
4
18
198
161
80
58
58
130
344
68
224
184
130
68
80
171
289
211
96
58

Major
Market
Rank

24

17
5
24
12

30

77
12

14
64
42
15

National
Rank
152
52
72
152
32
129
61
220
236
36
105
96
36
129
129
52
10
61
105
52
162
96
117
105
144
61
72
4
17
173
144
72
52
52
117
229
61
188
162
117
61
72
152
214
181
85
52

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Greenville, SC
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
Hanford, CA
Harrisburg, PA
Hartford, CT
Hickory, NC
Hilo, HI
Honolulu, HI
Houma, LA
Houston, TX
Huntsville, AL
Indianapolis. IN
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Kalamazoo, MI
Kankakee, IL
Kansas City, MO-KS
Kennewick-Richland, WA
Killeen , TX
Kingston, NY
Kingston, NY
Knoxville, TN
Lafayette, LA
Lake Havasu City, AZ
Lakeland, FL
Lancaster, PA
Lansing, MI
Lansing, MI
Laredo, TX
Las Vegas, NV
Lexington, KY
Lincoln, NE
Little Rock, AR
Longview, TX
Los Angeles, CALouisville, KY-IN
Madera, CA
Madison, WI
Manchester-Nashua, NH
McAllen, TX
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Merced, CA
Miami, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
Mobile, AL

MedianMultiple*
3.7
2.8
3.0
3.7
2.6
3.5
2.9
5.8
9.4
2.7
3.3
3.2
2.7
3.5
3.5
2.8
2.2
2.9
3.3
2.8
3.8
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.9
3.0
2.0
2.3
3.9
3.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.4
7.7
2.9
4.2
3.8
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.7
5.3
4.0
3.1
2.8

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$165,500$116,800$158,700$175,300$146,000$238,500$109,500$296,700$679,800$132,300$186,600$178,500$143,500$153,300$170,600$127,000$115,200$162,300$189,600$138,000$220,700$187,000$152,900$157,000$125,000$123,800$170,000$100,000$112,700$145,800$181,900$147,000$144,900$138,700$145,800$448,900$145,100$178,600$229,200$241,800$100,000$137,500$165,800$252,200$211,800$208,000$114,800

MedianHouseholdIncome$44,500$42,000$52,300$46,800$55,800$68,000$38,100$51,200$72,700$49,800$57,000$55,600$52,800$43,400$49,000$45,200$52,700$55,500$58,300$49,500$58,600$58,600$45,600$47,700$35,100$42,100$55,800$49,500$49,500$37,300$50,500$48,800$51,600$48,700$43,300$58,300$49,800$42,800$60,000$70,400$34,400$46,500$44,400$47,500$53,600$67,500$40,40048

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
224
96
240
341
289
130
218
161
323
108
41
96
117
171
41
161
343
41
142
142
96
11
184
171
18
218
117
232
268
142
198
240
218
108
117
68
232
248
142
264
80
36
1
240
11
211
336

Major
Market
Rank

21
30
71

17
30

37
34
1

59
48
17

24
57
3
48

National
Rank
188
85
198
226
214
117
185
144
222
96
36
85
105
152
36
144
228
36
129
129
85
10
162
152
17
185
105
193
212
129
173
198
185
96
105
61
193
204
129
211
72
32
1
198
10
181
225

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Modesto, CA
Montgomery, AL
Myrtle Beach, SC
Napa, CA
Naples, FL
Nashville, TN
New Haven, CT
New Orleans. LA
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Norwich-New London, CT
Ocala, FL
Ogden, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Olympia, WA
Omaha, NE-IA
Orlando, FL
Oxnard, CA
Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL
Palm Coast, FL
Panama City, FL
Pensacola, FL
Peoria, IL
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsfield, MA
Port St. Lucie, FL
Portland, ME
Portland, OR-WA
Poughkeepsie, NY
Prescott, AZ
Providence, RI-MA
Provo, UT
Punta Gorda, FL
Raleigh, NC
Reading, PA
Redding, CA
Reno-Sparks, NV
Richmond, VA
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
Roanoke, VA
Rochester, NY
Rockford, IL
Sacramento, CA
Saginaw, MI
Salem, OR
Salinas-Monterey, CA

MedianMultiple*
4.2
3.1
4.4
7.4
5.3
3.4
4.1
3.6
6.2
3.2
2.7
3.1
3.3
3.7
2.7
3.6
7.6
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.2
3.8
3.7
2.3
4.1
3.3
4.3
4.8
3.5
3.9
4.4
4.1
3.2
3.3
2.9
4.3
4.5
3.5
4.7
3.0
2.6
1.7
4.4
2.2
4.0
7.0

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$197,300$141,600$181,800$518,400$290,800$177,300$247,800$162,500$405,400$215,300$103,600$198,000$161,100$220,000$149,500$167,800$550,400$125,800$151,100$164,500$159,800$120,000$231,600$191,700$116,000$194,200$143,900$236,000$276,200$238,000$175,000$241,400$241,000$147,900$202,700$153,700$198,500$224,800$205,000$249,100$145,000$132,100$88,900$255,900$90,000$184,900$412,800

MedianHouseholdIncome$47,300$45,500$41,100$69,800$55,100$52,500$60,400$45,200$65,200$67,800$37,800$63,000$49,500$59,300$55,200$46,900$72,900$47,000$43,700$46,900$50,800$54,500$61,200$52,300$51,400$47,400$43,100$54,700$58,000$67,900$44,900$55,300$59,300$46,100$61,400$53,000$46,300$50,000$57,800$52,700$47,900$51,600$51,600$57,900$41,100$46,500$59,200

49

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
58
184
117
346
356
353
347
357
354
342
240
41
289
198
184
80
23
108
171
9
184
68
41
248
27
198
130
4
11
232
184
80
117
1
248
142
198
142
3
240
27
27
161
80
184
171
41

Major
Market
Rank
37
17
78
83
81

64

5

21

24

48

National
Rank
52
162
105
230
234
232
231
235
233
227
198
36
214
173
162
72
21
96
152
8
162
61
36
204
24
173
117
4
10
193
162
72
105
1
204
129
173
129
3
198
24
24
144
72
162
152
36

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Salisbury, MD
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
San Jose, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Cruz, CASanta Rosa, CA
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL
Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA
Seattle, WA
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL
Shreveport, LA
Sioux Falls, SD
South Bend, IN
Spartanburg, SC
Spokane, WA
Springfield, IL
Springfield, MA
Springfield, MO
St. Louis,, MO-IL
Stockton, CA
Syracuse, NY
Tallahassee, FL
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
Toledo, OH
Topeka, KS
Trenton, NJ
Tucson, AZ
Tulsa, OK
Tyler, TX
Utica, NY
Vallejo, CA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
Visalia, CA
Waco, TX
Warner Robbins, GA
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WVWaterloo, IA
Wichita, KS
Wilmington, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Worcester, MA
Yakima, WA
York, PAMedianMultiple*
2.8
3.8
3.3
7.9
9.2
8.7
8.0
9.3
9.0
7.5
4.4
2.7
5.3
3.9
3.8
3.0
2.4
3.2
3.7
2.1
3.8
2.9
2.7
4.5
2.5
3.9
3.4
2.0
2.2
4.3
3.8
3.0
3.3
1.7
4.5
3.5
3.9
3.5
1.9
4.4
2.5
2.5
3.6
3.0
3.8
3.7
2.7

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

Median Price$140,000$235,000$175,000$485,000$705,000$805,000$488,300$638,900$621,200$461,100$213,500$117,000$354,700$160,300$170,500$158,100$108,600$133,900$181,600$120,600$201,400$123,500$143,700$232,900$130,700$176,500$151,800$87,500$106,900$298,900$172,400$146,500$157,000$80,000$287,100$200,500$159,700$143,000$103,900$392,500$130,800$125,600$185,300$131,000$241,800$164,100$155,800

MedianHouseholdIncome$50,300$61,200$52,400$61,500$76,300$92,400$61,400$69,000$69,000$61,100$48,700$43,700$66,900$41,200$44,900$52,700$45,600$41,600$48,500$56,700$52,500$43,100$53,200$51,700$52,200$45,600$45,200$44,100$49,400$69,300$45,600$48,900$47,200$47,500$63,200$57,000$41,100$41,400$55,500$89,900$51,700$49,400$50,900$43,000$63,700$44,800$56,700

50

SCHEDULE 4
ALL MARKETS BY GEOGRAPHYMedian Multiple (Median House Price/Median Household Income): 2013 – 3rd Quarter
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
International
Affordability
Rank
9
224
96

Major
MarketRank

National
Rank
8
188
85

Nation
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.

Metropolitan Market
Youngstown, OH-PA
Yuba City, CA
Yuma, AZMedian Market

MedianMultiple*
2.1
4.2
3.1
3.4

Median Price$85,000$193,100$125,000MedianHouseholdIncome$41,400$46,500$40,200

Financial data in local currency.
*Average Multiple (Japan)

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

51

ANNEX: USES, METHODS AND SOURCES
Most international housing affordability sources and "city" rating sources focus on higher end housing thatwould be demanded by executives who might transfer from one nation to another. The Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey is unique in focusing on the middle of the market --- housing
affordability for average households.
Further, the focus is on metropolitan markets, rather than higher-cost inner areas or expensive
neighborhoods. This is an important distinction. The data in the Demographia International Housing Affordability
Survey does not relate, for example to Belgravia in London, New York's Upper East Side or Beverly Hills in
Los Angeles. It rather encompasses entire metropolitan markets, which for example, in the New York
metropolitan area includes 25 counties in the states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania55 (where
included housing can be 75 miles [120 kilometers] or more from the upscale areas of the urban core, where
prices are the highest).
Price-to-income Ratios: Uses and Misuses: The use of house price-to-income multiples has become more
popular in recent years. While the Median Multiple has been most frequently used, other price-to-income
multiples have been developed. This is appropriate, so long as parallel and consistently calculated indices areprovided. This has not always been the case.
In Australia, price-to-income ratios have been published that use average household incomes and median house
prices. To make valid comparisons between international markets, it would be necessary to also calculatethese "average/median" multiples for the markets outside Australia to which comparisons are made (and toprovide historical data). However, "average/median" multiples have been inappropriately compared to MedianMultiples. For example, Australian housing affordability has been portrayed more favorably than the reality, insources using average household incomes (which are materially higher than median household incomes) andmedian household incomes.
Coverage:. The nine nations and corresponding metropolitan markets that are included in the 10th Annual
Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey have sufficient current sources of house prices andhousehold income data to estimate housing affordability using the Median Multiple (the similar "Average
Multiple is used in Japan).
Demographia receives periodic requests to expand its coverage to other nations. The addition of continental
European nations, mainland China and India has been most frequently requested. Demographia would bepleased to add other nations and will do so wherever consistent data of sufficient quality can be identified.
Readers are encouraged to contact the authors with any such information.
House Characteristics: The indexes and data on which the Survey is based reflect the overwhelming majorityof existing housing in the markets. At the same time, there are differences in house types, housing
characteristics and lot size between the geographies covered. The Demographia International Housing Affordability
Survey does not adjust the Median Multiples to reflect these differences. For example, the average size of
housing, particularly new housing, is abnormally small by New World standards, the United Kingdom andHong Kong.56
55
56

As defined by the United States Bureau of Management and the Budget.
See 2nd Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Pages 16-18.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)52

Methods: Median house price information is obtained from the leading national reporting agencies andincludes the housing stock as reported upon. Where only average house prices are available, median house
prices are estimated from historic conversion factors, except in Japan. The principal sources are generally realestate industry time series that have become established as authoritative, national transaction registries andother government sources.
Median household income data is estimated using national census data or surveys for each metropolitan
market, where such data is available (such as the 2011 census in Australia, the 2011 National Household
Survey in Canada , the 2013 New Zealand census, the annual American Community Survey in the UnitedStates and the annual Census and Statistics Department data in Hong Kong). Alternative government data isused to estimate incomes in Ireland and the United Kingdom, where comparable census data has not been
identified. The income base is then adjusted to account for changes to produce an up-to-date estimate, using
the best available indicators of median income growth.
Median house price estimates are provided for the 3rd quarter of 2012 (September quarter), or for the monthof September where September quarter data is not available. In a few smaller markets, the latest available
house prices are from the 2nd quarter of 2012.
Caution is urged in time-series comparisons in individual markets. Changes in data sources, base year income
information, housing data sources and geographical definitions make precise year to year comparisons lessreliable. Comparisons should be generally limited to the housing affordability rating categories of"affordable," moderately unaffordable," "seriously unaffordable" and "severely unaffordable."57
Sources: The following principal sources have been consulted:
Arkansas Realtors Association
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Property Monitors
Bank of Canada
Bank of England
Bank of Ireland
Calgary Real Estate Board
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Canadian Home Builders Association
Canadian Real Estate Association
Census and Statistical Office: Government of Hong Kong
Central Statistics Office, Ireland
Chambre immobilière du Grand Montréal
Clarksville (Tennessee) Association of Realtors
Coastal Carolinas Association of Realtors
Communities and Local Government (Ministry), United Kingdom
Daft.ie
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Ireland)
Edmonton Real Estate Board
57

Demographia attempts to use the most reliable available data at the time of report preparation. This necessitates adopting more
representative sources as they become available, including new sources and updates.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)53

Federal Reserve System (United States)
Fédération des chambres immobilières du Québec
Harvard University Joint Center on Housing
Hawaii Information Service
Housing Industry Association (Australia)
Ireland Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Japan Statistics Bureau
John Burns Real Estate Consulting
The Land Institute of Japan
Land Registry of England and WalesThe Land Registry (Hong Kong)Louisiana Realtors
National Association of Home Builders (USA)National Association of Realtors (USA)National Statistics (United Kingdom)North Carolina Association of Realtors
Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency
Notaires de France
Realcomp (Detroit)
Real Estate Board of Winnipeg
Real Estate Center, Texas A&M University
Real Estate Institute of Australia
Real Estate Institute of New South Wales
Real Estate Institute of New Zealand
Real Estate Institute of Northern Territory
Real Estate Institute of Queensland
Real Estate Institute of Tasmania
Real Estate Institute of Victoria
Real Estate Institute of Western Australia
Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington
Registers of Scotland
Reserve Bank of Australia
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Residential Property Price Register of the Property Services Regulatory Authority (Ireland)
RP Data (realestate.com.au)
Singapore Department of Statistics
Singapore Real Estate Exchange (SRX)
Statistics Canada
Statistics New ZealandToronto Real Estate Board
United Kingdom Department of Communities and Local Government
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
University of Ulster
Urban Development Institute of Australia
Zillow.com

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

54

Notes on Figures:
Figure 1: Housing Affordability: 2004-2013: From data in Demographia Surveys.
Figure 2: Most and Least Affordable Markets: From data in the Demographia Survey.
Figure 3: Housing Affordability & Land Regulation: In the United States, more restrictive regulation
markets (Table 1) include those classified as “growth management,” “growth control,” “containment” and“contain-lite” in From Traditional to Reformed A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 largest
Metropolitan Areas (Brookings Institution, 2006) as well as markets Demographia has determined to havesignificant land rationing (urban containment) and rural zoning (large lot zoning) restrictions (New York,
Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Washington). Outside the United States, urban containment metropolitan
markets are identified based upon their widespread use urban containment. This includes all of the United
Kingdom (under the Town and Country Planning Act), Ireland (under the National Spatial Strategy), Hong
Kong and all of the markets of Australia and New Zealand. In Canada, urban containment policy has been
adopted in Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. Markets not classified as “urban
containment” are classified as liberal.
Figure 4: Overall Housing Affordability: From data in the Demographia Survey.
Figure 5: Housing Affordability Trend: Australia: From data in the Demographia Surveys.
Figure 6: Housing Affordability Trend: Canada: From data in the Demographia Surveys.
Figure 7: Housing Affordability Trend: United States: From data in the Demographia Surveys.
Figure 8: Average New House Size: Data from US Census Bureau, housepricecrash.com, stproperty.sg,
shrinkthatfootprint.com.
Figure 9: House Price-to-income Ratios: Reserve Bank of Australia.
Table 16
Metropolitan Market Selection Criteria
NationAustralia
CanadaChina (S.A.R)
IrelandJapanNew ZealandSingapore
United Kingdom
United States

Markets Included (Where Complete Data is Available)
Metropolitan markets corresponding to urban centres over 50,000 population & Pilbara
Metropolitan markets (CMAs) over 100,000 population
Hong Kong
Metropolitan markets over 50,000 population
Two largest markets (only markets available)
Markets corresponding to urban areas over 75,000 population
SingaporeMarkets corresponding to urban areas over 150,000 population and London Exurbs (E & SE England).
Metropolitan markets (MSAs) over 200,000 population

Selected additional markets.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)55

Footer Illustrations: New Houses (Left to Right):
Suburban Kansas City, United States
Suburban Montréal, Canada
East of England (London Exurbs), United Kingdom
Suburban Tseung Kwan O (Hong Kong)
Suburban Dublin, Ireland
Suburban Auckland, New Zealand
Suburban Adelaide, Australia

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)

56

BIOGRAPHIES
Wendell Cox
Wendell Cox is co-author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. He is a public policy
consultant and principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm. He has also served as a visiting
professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris (a national university) from 2002. He is
vice-president of CODATU, a Lyon (France) based international research organization dedicated to
improving transport in developing world urban areas. He is a contributing editor at newgeography.com andauthor of the Evolving Urban Form series, which provides development profiles of individual world urban
areas. Among his most recent policy reports were Improving the Competitiveness of Metropolitan Areas and
Evaluation of Plan Bay Area and a "framing essay" entitled Toward More Prosperous Cities.
He is also associated with various public policy organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation (Washington),
the Frontier Centre (Winnipeg), the Pacific Research Institute (San Francisco), the Texas Public Policy
Foundation, the Independence Institute (Denver), Institut économique de Montréal, the National Center for
Policy Analysis (Dallas), Georgia the Public Policy Foundation, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy and the
Maryland Public Policy Institute.
Wendell Cox has lectured widely, including a month long tour to all Australian state and territorial capitals
and university lectures in the United Kingdom, France, China, Egypt and Australia. He has completed
projects in the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in urban policy,
demographics and transport.
He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom
Bradley and to the Amtrak Reform Council by Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.
Demographia annually publishes Demographia World Urban Areas, the only annual list of world urban areas(agglomerations) over 500,000 population with coordinate urban land area, population and population density
estimates. Demographia sponsors three internet web sites, including demographia.com,
www.publicpurpose.com and www.rentalcartours.net. The www.publicpurpose.com website has been twice
honored by the National Journal as one of the nation’s top internet transport sites. He is also author of the
Demographia Residential Land and Regulation Cost Index.
In 2004 he teamed with Hugh Pavletich of Performance Urban Planning to develop the Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey.
Hugh Pavletich
Hugh Pavletich, the co-author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, resides in “severely
unaffordable” ( 5.8 Median Multiple ) Christchurch, New Zealand, which since 4 September 2010 has
experienced in excess of 13,000 earthquakes. He has written extensively on these issues.
He operates the archival website Performance Urban Planning and is the Managing Director of Pavletich
Properties Ltd, a commercial property development and investment company.

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)57

He commenced his working life as a farm worker and wool classer (wool classifier) in 1967 and moved toChristchurch in 1980, where he started developing small factory units and has developed commercial andindustrial property on freehold and Maori leasehold land in other centers of the South Island as well.
His industry involvement commenced when elected President of the South Island Division of the Property
Council of New Zealand (then the Building Owners & Managers Association – BOMA) soon after its
inception in 1991, which he led for four years.
He has had extensive involvement with public policy issues of local authority financial management, land use
regulation and heritage. In 2004, he was elected a fellow of the Urban Development Institute of Australia(UDIA) for services to the industry.
He felt there was a need for an international measure of housing affordability and teamed up with Wendell
Cox in 2004, to develop the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.
Alain Bertaud: See Introduction

Demographia(Wendell Cox Consultancy)
P.O. Box 841
Belleville, Illinois 62269 USA(St. Louis Metropolitan Region)www.demographia.com
demographia2@earthlink.net
Contact: Wendell Cox+1.618.632.8507: United States

Performance Urban Planning
Christchurch, New Zealand
www.performanceurbanplanning.org/
hugh.pavletich@xtra.co.nz
Contact: Hugh Pavletich+64.3.343.9944

10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2013: 3rd Quarter)58